Recently, a learned lawyer posted a link to a Supreme Court Judgment, according to which 138 may not apply to a cheque which is returned by the bank for reasons other than insufficient funds.
In my case, the bank has issued a clarification through a letter, that the cheques which bounced were not honored because they were more than 16 years old. The facts are that when I first checked with the bank whether I even had a bank account with them at the concerned branch after reveiving a legal notice, the bank said that they had no records of any bank account in my name. When I mentioned that how come, the cheques bounced in that case, they did more research and indeed found a dormant bank account that had not been used for 16 years. Which is the best legally admissible agency to go for proving that the ink of the signatures is more than 16 years old, that is if i signed the cheques since I do not remember anything about signing - after 16 years. The rest of the entries on the cheques are recent (and not in my handwriting). I have received summons in the 138 case, but no proof of loan advanced (amount more than 10 lakhs) has been produced when filing the case. The other party managed to extract a contradictory statement from the headoffice of the bank by a clerk saying that the cheques bounced for insufficient funds (one can speculate how). However, the first question now is whether to contest the case or move for quashing of an obviously false case. Can I first take an expert's opinion on the age of the ink of the signature on the cheque and then move for quashing? Should I file for a counter criminal case, in any event, since the complainant still possesses some cheque leaves that can be misused. Police Complaint has been done.