Dishonour of security cheque is no offence under N I Act

I gave a loan to my friend because he was facing some financial hardship. At the same time, he gave me a security cheque. That security cheque was bearing the equal amount of loan because he intended to secure the loan. However, I was quite sure that he will repay the loan within 2 months but unfortunately, he failed to do so.  Thereafter, I made some query regarding the repayment of the loan. He told me to encash the security cheque and after receiving his assurance, I presented that cheque in the bank. The bank informed me that he has…

I gave a loan to my friend because he was facing some financial hardship. At the same time, he gave me a security cheque. That security cheque was bearing the equal amount of loan because he intended to secure the loan. However, I was quite sure that he will repay the loan within 2 months but unfortunately, he failed to do so. 

Thereafter, I made some query regarding the repayment of the loan. He told me to encash the security cheque and after receiving his assurance, I presented that cheque in the bank. The bank informed me that he has dishonoured the cheque.

I sent him a demand notice to pay the loan amount but he did not reply. After receiving no response from him, I have filed a complaint against him. At the trial, he pleaded that it was a security cheque, therefore, he stopped that cheque. He said that no offence is made out under section 138 NI act. Is he right? What the law towards security cheque?

Your friend has committed an act of cheque dishonour by instructing the bank to stop the payment, which proves that he was aware of the cheque's presentation and intentionally dishonoured it. This indicates that he does not intend to fulfil his liability.

A security cheque is a cheque issued as collateral security in a commercial transaction, which is not meant for encashment. However, in this case, your friend cannot claim that the cheque was a security cheque since he was already in debt when he issued it to you, indicating that it was issued in discharge of his debt.

As per Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption of discharge of debt or liability in your favour. It is presumed that you received the cheque in discharge of your friend's debt, and the burden of proof now lies upon your friend to prove that it was a security cheque.

Security cheque

A cheque that is issued as collateral security is known as a security cheque. Collateral security refers to an asset that a borrower provides to a lender as a guarantee to be sold in case of failure to repay the loan.

In commercial transactions, a cheque can be used as collateral security, but it cannot be encashed because it is not intended to discharge a debt or liability.

Your friend has committed offence under section 138 NI Act

The dishonour of a cheque is considered an offence only when it is issued in discharge of debt or liability. In this case, your friend cannot deny that he was indebted at the time of issuing the cheque to you. Therefore, he issued the cheque to discharge his debt.

As per the Supreme Court in the case of P. Venugopal vs Madan P. Sarathi, (2009) 1 SCC, if a cheque is issued partly in discharge of liability or debt, then it is not considered a security cheque. If such a cheque is dishonoured, it shall constitute an offence under section 138 of the NI Act.

In your case, all the ingredients of section 138 NI Act are present. You can prove your case on the grounds that your friend took a loan from you, he issued the cheque to discharge the debt, the debt existed at the time of issuance of the cheque, he intentionally stopped the payment of the cheque, and you received no response from him against the demand notice.

The presumption of debt also lies in your favour, and your friend has to rebut that presumption by providing evidence that it was a security cheque. However, in the current circumstances, he cannot deny the loan. Thus, he cannot prove that the alleged cheque is a security cheque.

Therefore, his plea of the security cheque is false and frivolous, and you have enough evidence to prove that he has dishonoured the cheque.

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.