Ni false cases

Yes, apply for verification/vetting your signature from FSL, If you have been charged by the court. 

Your second query could not be understood since the same is some SMS/Foriegn language. However, if the police has lodged FIR, now they will have to follow the law/rules on the subject.

When accused admits that cheque was from his account than all other arguments such  AS stolen cheque, forged sign, SECURITY CHEQUE  or blank cheque stories have been rejected by APEX COURT.

ACCUSED SHOULD FIGHT THE CHEQUE CASES ON TECHNICAL ISSUES ONLY.

SEE WHAT SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IN RECENT CASE

and another situation in which the drawer of the cheque changes his own signatures or closes the account or issues instructions to the bank not to make the payment. So long as the change is brought about with a view to preventing the cheque being honoured the dishonour would become an offence under Section 138 subject to other conditions prescribed being satisfied. There may indeed be situations where a mismatch between the signatories on the cheque drawn by the drawer and the specimen available with the bank may result in dishonour of the cheque even when the drawer when the drawer never intended to invite such a dishonour.  

 because such a dishonour in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 shall have to be preceded by a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon and has the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque.

SUPREME COURT  New Delhi; November 27, 2012

After issue of cheque or after cheque bounce police report has no meaning.

In fact it will be counter productive while defending the cheque case.

Supreme court in the famous  recent DASHRATH case has even suggested filing of criminal case under IPC such as 420 against the person who issued the dud cheque.

It seems that complainant is satisfied by filing cheque case other wise for IPC cases even bail will not be  early and will not be easy..

Please read the reply carefully. You must have given police complaint after issue of cheque and after bounce.

And if you had filed the police complaint and if police did not  take further action  than you should have filed private complaint.

You have not done it so now it does not have any credibility.

Please read the reply carefully. You must have given police complaint after issue of cheque and after bounce.

And if you had filed the police complaint and if police did not  take further action  than you should have filed private complaint.

You have not done it so now it does not have any credibility.

SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED ALL SUCH CLAIMS AFTER ISSUE OF CHEQUE

Section  139  of  the  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, includes the presumption of  the  existence  at  a  legally  enforceable  debt  or liability.    That  presumption  is  required  to  be honoured,  and  if  it  is  not  so  done,  the  entire basis  of  making  these  provisions  will  be  lost.

three-Judge Bench of this Court ( SUPREME COURT in  (2010) 11 SCC 441 has approved the above decision and held that failure of the drawer of the cheque to put up a probable defence for rebutting the presumption that arises under Section 139  would justify conviction even when the appellant drawer may have alleged that the cheque in question had been lost and was being misused by the  complainant.

New Delhi;

November 27, 2012

IT WAS CONFIRMED AGAIN BY SC ON 23rd JULY 2013 AS BELOW-

FAR ALL SIMILAR CHEQUE BOUNCE VICTIMS IT IS MESSAGE THAT DO NOT WASTE TIME IN SUCH DEFENSES WHICH  ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY ANY COURT.

LAW IS SHORT AND PROCEDURE IS VERY VERY SHORT. NOW APEX COURT IN 2014 CASE IN THE MATER OF INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION HAS GIVEN CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS TO FINISH THE CASES IN THREE MONTHS BY GIVING DETAILED PROCEDURE.

SO ONCE TRIAL STARTS IT WILL RUN FAST AND NO TIME WILL BE GRANTED SO FROM FIRST DAY A CREDIBLE DEFENSE LAY OUT MUST BE MADE.

JUST GO IN ANY TRIAL  COURT AND WATCH THE PROGRESS OF CHEQUE CASES AND YOU WILL FIND CONVICTION IN ROUTINE TO MOST OF CASES. MEET THE ACCUSED WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TRIAL TO UNDERSTAND PROPERLY THE RISKS INVOLVED.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO DEFENSE.THERE ARE MANY CHANCES BUT FOR THAT YOU MUST SEEK A LEGAL PERSON WHO HAD WON THE CASES.

This is a matter to be taken up with the court during trial of the case, you may challenge the case properly with the help of evidence in your possession.