can i file 138 case for "account inoperative/dormant"


sir,

 i am unsure whether the cheque returned under heading'account inoperative /dormant' attracts s.138.

i should be writen in legal notice sent to accused, as s.138 says of only insufficient funds

further what is the position of cheque returned as "account closed"

if possible than please give some judgements on it.

thanx for spare time in reading the query, and oblige by replying

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR

WELL, VERY MUCH ATTRACTS 138.

 
Reply   
 



i am confused from raj kumar khurana judgement of SC. may i get any judgement for  account inoperative and account closed for s. 138.

 thanx sir

 
Reply   
 

Cheque issued for any  legally enforceable debt or other liability  get return unpaid by the bank  for any reason and if notice is issued to the person who has signed the cheque to pay the amount of the cheque with in fifteen days  of the receipt of the notice and if he fails to pay the cheque amount with in fifteen days he makes himself liable to prosecute u/s 138 of negotiable instrument he makes himself liable to be punished on the fifteenth day of the expire of the notice and not for any reason for which  the cheque gets  returned unpaid  from the bank so for whatever reason the cheque return unpaid from the bank you can file a case  under negotiable instrument act but please unsure to appoint a good lawyer as there are plenty procedure to be followed as any mistake in procedure and you will lose your case

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR

Shailendraji  you are 100% correct.

 
Reply   
 
B.Sc, B.L

In fact in one of the judgments of Apex Court  the court held that  a case under Sec. 138 lies only in two circumstances.

 

i.e  "when the cheque is returned on the ground of Insufficient funds"

secondly on the ground of "Exceeds arangemment". In other circumstances no case under Sec. 138 NI Act.

Please see

Hon'ble SC has delivered a very important judgment on applicability of S.138 of NI Act.

Raj Kumar Khurana v/s State of (NCT of Delhi) and anr.

Criminal Appeal no. 913 of 2009 decided on 5.5.2009


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

yes that raj kumar khurana judgement is confusing me. please spread light on it

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR

DEAR ALL,

NO CONFUSTION AT ALL THE SC CASE OF RAJKUMARKURANA WAS A CASE OF STOLEN CHQ WHERE FIR AND OTHER FACTS OF THE CASE LEADS BEYOND 138 PERVIEW .PLS ALSO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE JUDGMENT BELOW



Attached File : 8 8 raj kumar khurana vs state of nct of delhi anr on 5 may 2009 1 .pdf downloaded 436 times
 
Reply   
 
POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE

On face of it NI 138 will not be applicable.

1) as suggested above you have to prove legal liability.

2) Cheque returned far want of funds which will not include closed or dormant accout.

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR

DEAR LEARND FRIENDS,

PLS GO THROUGH THE OBJERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT  IN PARA 14.

14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint petition

does not disclose an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment being unsustainable is set aside. The appeal is

allowed. ...............................J.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC Course!     |    x