Blog

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that offence of Cheque Bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be valid if the cheque carry total amount without deduting the part-payment made by the borrower after the issuance of the cheque.

The Court held that the sum reflected on the cheque will not be the "legally enforceable debt" as per Section 138 Negotiable instrument Act.

Key Observations by the Hon'ble Supreme courts are

(i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation;

(ii) If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque;

(iii) When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted.

Download this important judgement from here

Referred Sections in the Judgement:

Case number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615  of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8260/2018)

• Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
• Section 20 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 3(b)
• Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Key happenings in the matter Chronologically:

1. Judicial Magistrate: (16.03.2011)

This matter was first filed u/s 125 CrPC claiming maintenance by Ms Abhilasha’s mother  (Abhilasha  is the one who filed the current matter in Supreme Court) from her husband (father of Abhilasha) for herself and her three children (one of them was Abhilasha). The learned Judicial Magistrate by their judgment dated 16.02.2011 dismissed the application under Section 125 allowed the grant of maintenance for Abhilasha till she attains majority.

2. Session Judge: (17.02.2014)

The above judgement was challenged before the court of Session Judge. This was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 17.02.2014 and the Hon’ble Judge midified the order  and said that Abhilasha  shall be entitled to maintenance till 26.04.2005 when she attains majority.

3. Punjab Haryana High-Court (16.02.2018)

The above order was challenged through an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was was filed before the  Punjab Haryana, High court. High Court through its judgment dated16.02.2018 dismissed the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and said that previous both courts were correct in their judgement and said that Abhilasha was entitled to get maintenance till she is attaining majority and not thereafter since she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury. High Court also said that in such a situation when a child, who though has attained majority but is unable to maintain itself only then is entitled to get maintenance.

4. Supreme Court: (2020)

Abhilasha Appealed against the High Court’s judgement in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed that Abhilasha is not entitled for maintenance from here father. Hon’ble Supreme Court also reaffirm that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married or attained majority.  If she proves that that she is unable to maintain herself only in that situation she can claim maintenance.

Read the complete judgement here: 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/34880/34880_2018_35_1501_23965_Judgement_15-Sep-2020.pdf