Cheque Bounce

A

Complainant

Versus

Mrs. U                                                                    Respondent

 

1. That the Complainant ‘A’ is the President of an organization engaged in the business of finance, wherein the Complainant’s institution provides business loans to needy women through women’s self-help groups.
2. That, by way of a loan, a sum amounting to ₹7,50,000/- (in figures: Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Rupees) was disbursed to the group of the Accused/Respondent, for which the Respondent/Accused served as the Guarantor. The Accused/Respondent was also the Leader of the said group. The aforementioned loan taken by the Respondent’s group was required to be repaid within the stipulated timeframe. The Respondent’s group failed to repay the said loan, along with the accrued interest thereon, by the aforementioned date.
3. That, subsequent to the expiration of the aforesaid date, the Complainant personally contacted the Respondent and demanded the repayment of the principal loan amount and the interest outstanding thereon.
4. That, in response to the Complainant’s demand, the Respondent provided an assurance regarding the repayment of the outstanding loan and interest; and, for the purpose of effecting said payment, the Respondent signed and issued to the Complainant a Cheque bearing No. xxxx, dated 12/09/2023, drawn on xxxx Bank, Branch xxxxx, Jabalpur, for a sum of ₹2,45,504/- (in words: Two Lakh Forty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Four Rupees), which amount comprised both the principal outstanding loan amount and the accrued interest. The Respondent gave an assurance that, upon presenting the cheque to the bank on or after the date specified therein, the payment of the cheque amount would definitely be realized.
5. That, acting in accordance with the Respondent’s instructions, the Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment at the account of ‘A’ (the Complainant’s organization)—Account No. xxxxxxxxxxxx, [Bank Name] Limited, Jabalpur. However, on 05-12-2023, the bank returned the cheque to the Complainant without making any payment, accompanied by a Return Memo bearing the remark: “Insufficient Funds.” The Complainant was unable to receive payment of the amount specified in the cheque issued by the Respondent in discharge of her aforementioned liability.
6. That subsequently, the Complainant contacted the Respondent via mobile phone and through his collection agent to inform her of the dishonor of the cheque and to demand payment of the amount inscribed thereon; however, the Respondent failed to provide any satisfactory response. Instead, stating that she would make the payment at a future date once funds became available, the Respondent refused to engage further with the Complainant and declined to return the amount owed to him.
7. That thereafter, within the stipulated time limit, the Complainant dispatched a Legal Demand Notice dated 08.12.2023 to the Respondent via Registered Post on 11.12.2023 through his counsel. However, on 12.12.2023, the Respondent refused to accept the said notice. Consequently, the Complainant has been compelled to file this complaint before this Honorable Court. A copy of the notice dated 08.12.2023 is annexed hereto as Exhibit-3, along with a printout obtained from the internet confirming the Respondent’s refusal to accept the said notice on 12.12.2023.
8. That the Respondent issued the aforementioned cheque in fulfillment of her legal liability towards the Complainant and provided assurances that payment of the amount specified therein would be duly received. However, acting with fraudulent intent and with the specific motive of misappropriating the Complainant’s funds, the Respondent deliberately issued a cheque drawn on a “closed account,” which subsequently resulted in its dishonor. This act committed by the Respondent constitutes a punishable offense falling within the purview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, it would be just and equitable to punish the Respondent in this case with an appropriate penalty in accordance with the law, and to direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a sum equivalent to double the amount specified in the cheque, inclusive of damages, costs, and interest.
9. That since the said cheque was dishonored at the Jabalpur branch of xxx Bank Limited—where the Complainant maintains an account—this Honorable Court possesses full territorial jurisdiction to hear this matter.
10. That the said cheque was returned dishonored on 06.12.2023; subsequently, within the statutory period of 30 days, the Complainant, through his counsel, dispatched a legal notice to the Respondent on 11.12.2023. As the Respondent refused to accept the said notice on 12.12.2023, and upon the expiration of the 15-day period stipulated in the notice, the Complainant has filed this complaint before this Honorable Court within the prescribed statutory period of 30 days.
11. That the Complainant has affixed the requisite court fee stamp on the complaint petition, calculated in accordance with the value of the cheque amount.
12. That the Complainant has submitted the documents listed in the accompanying schedule along with this complaint, and expressly reserves the right to submit further documents in the future.

Justice was secured in this cheque bounce case thanks to the exceptional legal advocacy of Mr. Amit Singh Raghuvanshi. His professional conduct is highly commendable. The Honorable Judge subsequently pronounced the final order in this matter.

Present for the Complainant: Mr. Amit Singh Raghuvanshi. Present for the Accused: None. The case is listed for the appearance of the Accused. The arrest warrants previously issued in this case have not been received back, whether executed or unexecuted. A perusal of the case records clearly indicates that although arrest warrants were issued against the Accused on previous hearing dates, the presence of the Accused could not be secured. The arrest warrants issued against the Accused remain unexecuted, thereby giving rise to the inference that there is no likelihood of apprehending the Accused in the near future. Therefore, the accused, Smt. Urmila Upadhyay, is hereby declared a fugitive under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A permanent warrant of arrest shall be issued against the accused, and the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station... The warrant shall be handed over to the concerned officer, and an acknowledgment of receipt shall be obtained in the Order Sheet. An endorsement shall be recorded on the warrant stating that the offense is of a bailable nature and that the accused is to be produced before the Court without being handcuffed. In the case of a Standing Arrest Warrant, an additional endorsement shall be recorded noting that the accused absconded at a stage when the case was fixed for his/her first appearance. The outcome of the case shall be recorded in the relevant register and in the CIS (Case Information System); furthermore, an endorsement shall be made on the case file cover, in red ink, stating that the accused in this case is absconding, and that the case record is to be preserved securely. The outcome of the case shall be recorded in the relevant register, and an endorsement shall be made on the case file cover, in red ink, stating that the accused in this case is absconding, and that the case record is to be preserved securely. Upon the appearance of the accused, a notice to this effect shall be dispatched to the complainant party. The outcome of the case having been recorded, the case file shall be transmitted to the archives in accordance with the law and within the stipulated timeframe.

(xxxxxxxx) Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, M.P.