Cheque bounce due to the closure of account

Cheque bounce due to the closure of account. My friend has closed his bank account even he knew that he has already issued a cheque to me. Actually he does not want to repay borrowed money. I want to know whether cheque bounce case would be initiated against him for closing his band account to […]

Cheque bounce due to the closure of account. My friend has closed his bank account even he knew that he has already issued a cheque to me. Actually he does not want to repay borrowed money. I want to know whether cheque bounce case would be initiated against him for closing his band account to evade himself from payment of debt.  

Your friend has committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Where you received information from the bank about dishonour of cheque, thereupon you should send a demand notice. You cannot initiate proceeding under the Negotiable Instrument Act unless and until you send a demand notice and he refused to pay the amount within 15 days.

It would be best if you did not sell his bike because he has not pledged his motorcycle to sell in default of payment. If you sell his motorcycle without his consent, then you will commit the offence of breach of Trust. Consequently, he can lodge FIR against you for the said offence. It would be right for you to proceed under the Negotiable Instrument Act because he has committed a crime under the NI Act.

You should immediately send a demand notice to pay the 28000 rupees. If your friend does not pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, then you can file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. You will have 30 days to file such a complaint because the negotiable instrument itself fixed a limitation for filing a complaint.

If you do not file the complaint within the time prescribed under the Negotiable Instrument Act, then you have to adduce evidence for such delay. However, the court has the power to condone the delay, but inordinate delay may take away your right to file a complaint.

Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides sufficient punishment for the dishonour of cheque therefore, no need to sell his bike and commit an offence. You should refrain from doing such a thing and proceed legally under the Negotiable Instrument Act. You should not give him a chance to file a cross-case against you.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.