{"id":350998,"date":"2025-06-19T15:00:15","date_gmt":"2025-06-19T09:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350998"},"modified":"2025-06-20T12:28:53","modified_gmt":"2025-06-20T06:58:53","slug":"cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court<\/span>: In a petition filed under Section 528<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, seeking to quash summons dated 18-09-2024 and the consequential proceedings arising out of complaint initiated under Section 138<\/a> of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>, Ravinder Dudeja, J., quashed the summoning order as the reason for dishonor as “insufficient funds” was that the petitioners’ account was frozen by the CGST Department, and thus, it could not be said to be “maintained” by them at the relevant time.<\/p>\n

The dispute arose from a commercial relationship involving supply of TMT bars, for which the petitioners had issued two post-dated cheques in November and December 2023, each for a sum of \u20b92,40,000. The parties allegedly had an understanding that the said cheques would not be presented without the petitioners’ prior consent. However, on 22-01-2024, before the cheques were presented, the petitioners’ bank account was provisionally attached by the CGST Department under Section 83<\/a> of the CGST Act, 2017<\/a>, precluding any debit transactions.<\/p>\n

Despite being informed of this development, the respondent presented the cheques for encashment on 08-02-2024. They were dishonoured on 20-02-2024. Although the official reason given by the bank in the return memo was “insufficient funds,” the petitioners contended that this was factually incorrect, as the dishonour was due to the account being frozen. The petitioners received a legal notice on 16-03-2024, responded to it on 27-03-2024 enclosing documents and raising objections, but were nevertheless subjected to a criminal complaint under Section 138<\/a> NI Act<\/a>. The Trial Court issued a summon to them on 18-09-2024.<\/p>\n

The petitioners challenged the summoning order on the ground that their account was not “maintained” within the meaning of Section 138<\/a> NI Act<\/a> at the time of cheque presentation, as they were unable to operate it due to the statutory attachment. They relied on the judgment in Deepinder Singh Bedi v. State<\/span>, Crl. M.C. 5965\/2019, decided on 30-09-2024, where the Delhi High Court had held that if an account is frozen by statutory order, it cannot be considered “maintained” for the purpose of prosecuting the drawer under Section 138<\/a> NI Act<\/a>. They also cited Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd.<\/span>, (2000) 2 SCC 745<\/a> and Ceasefire Industries Ltd. v. State<\/span>, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 951 to assert that when dishonour arises due to circumstances beyond the drawer’s control, particularly freezing of accounts by statutory authorities, the penal consequences under Section 138 do not follow. The core contention was that the cheque was not dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds or willful default, but due to a statutory bar imposed on the account.<\/p>\n

The respondent, however, opposed the petition by arguing that the petitioners had knowledge of the attachment yet continued to issue cheques. They contended that it reflected negligent and culpable conduct, and reliance on Deepinder Singh Bedi (supra)<\/span> was misplaced because that decision also acknowledged that knowledge of inoperability could attract liability. They maintained that the issuance and dishonour of the cheques, coupled with the statutory notice, fulfilled all essential elements under Section 138 and the summoning order was well-founded.<\/p>\n

The Court found that the petitioners had not anticipated the freezing of their account when the cheques were issued. Once they became aware of the CGST Department’s attachment order dated 22-01-2024, they informed the respondent and specifically requested that the cheques not be presented until the account was de-frozen. The attachment was further substantiated by a bank communication dated 03-03-2025, which confirmed that a “STOP” had been marked on the account on 02-02-2024, and no transactions could proceed without departmental clearance.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that under Section 138<\/a> NI Act<\/a>, penal liability arises only when a cheque drawn on an account maintained by the drawer is dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds or because the amount exceeds the arrangement with the bank. In this case, the dishonour was directly caused by the attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, and not by lack of funds or misuse. The term “maintained,” as interpreted in Vijay Chaudhary v. Gyan Chand Jain<\/span>, was reaffirmed stating that an account is not “maintained” when the drawer cannot issue binding instructions or operate it due to external legal restraints.<\/p>\n

The High Court concluded that the essential ingredients for attracting Section 138 were not satisfied in the present case. As such, the issuance of summons without appreciation of these critical facts and legal principles was erroneous. The summoning order dated 18.09.2024 was thus quashed and the petition allowed.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court quashed the summoning order as dishonour of cheques due to statutory attachment of the account by the CGST Department does not fulfill the requirements of Section 138<\/a> NI Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. R.D. Sales, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4267<\/a>, decided on 05-06-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Mr. Yash Maheshwari, Mr. Tanmay Mishra and Mr. Krishna Kanhaiya Kumar, Advocates for petitioner<\/p>\n

Mr. Uday Seth and Ms. Puja Dewan, Advs. SI Monu Chauhan (I.O), PS. Crime Branch<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Even though the cheque return memo may mention its reason for dishonor as “insufficient funds”, the fact remains that, the petitioners’ account was frozen by the CGST Department, and thus, it could not be said to be “maintained” by them.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29698,83741,72373,83743,77128,83742,9441,83744],"class_list":["post-350998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cgst","tag-chequedishonour","tag-delhihighcourt","tag-frozenaccount","tag-negotiableinstrumentsact","tag-niact","tag-section-138","tag-summonsquashed"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC: Dishonour of cheque due account freeze does not attract Section 138 NI Act| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that cheque dishonour due to a CGST-based account freeze does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that cheque dishonour due to a CGST-based account freeze does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-19T09:30:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-20T06:58:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC: Dishonour of cheque due account freeze does not attract Section 138 NI Act| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-19T09:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-20T06:58:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that cheque dishonour due to a CGST-based account freeze does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC: Dishonour of cheque due account freeze does not attract Section 138 NI Act| SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held that cheque dishonour due to a CGST-based account freeze does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that cheque dishonour due to a CGST-based account freeze does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-19T09:30:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-20T06:58:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC: Dishonour of cheque due account freeze does not attract Section 138 NI Act| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-19T09:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-20T06:58:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that cheque dishonour due to a CGST-based account freeze does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/19\/cheque-dishonour-frozen-account-not-offence-ni-act-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cheque Dishonour due to Frozen Account not Offence Under NI Act: Delhi High Court interprets \u201caccount maintained\u201d under Section 138 NI Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":338352,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/andhra-pradesh-hc-quashes-138-ni-act-case-invalid-cheque-merged-bank-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350998,"position":0},"title":"Andhra Pradesh High Court quashes NI Act proceedings due to invalid cheque issued from merged bank","author":"Arunima","date":"January 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, ruling that the dishonor of a cheque issued on a State Bank of Hyderabad account, rendered invalid due to the bank\u2019s merger with SBI and expiry of its validity in March 2018, does not attract liability under the NI\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233443,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/06\/delhi-court-for-application-of-s-138-of-ni-act-there-should-not-be-any-uncertainty-ambiguity-in-cheque-as-regards-to-amount-written-in-words\/","url_meta":{"origin":350998,"position":1},"title":"Delhi Court | For application of S. 138 of NI Act, there should not be any uncertainty\/ ambiguity in cheque as regards to amount written in words","author":"Editor","date":"August 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patiala House Courts, Delhi","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238924,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/09\/all-hc-can-a-complaint-filed-in-light-of-s-138-ni-act-be-dismissed-on-ground-of-one-day-delay-read-courts-reasoned-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":350998,"position":2},"title":"All HC | Can a complaint filed in light of S. 138 NI Act be dismissed on ground of one day delay? Read Court’s reasoned order","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court:\u00a0Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., held that a complaint made in light of dishonor of cheque filed with a delay of one day cannot be dismissed as one day delay has to be excluded. The instant application was filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on being\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":265356,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/dishonour-of-cheque-11\/","url_meta":{"origin":350998,"position":3},"title":"Ori HC considers whether any difference exists between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and where prosecution is deferred till cheque presented again gets dishonored for second or successive time?","author":"Editor","date":"April 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is misconceived and therefore, cannot be sustained. The facts of the case are such that the\u00a0 petitioner is an accused in a complaint case filed by OP 1 pending\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":28111,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/12\/03\/section-142a-of-ni-act-1881-gives-retrospectivity-to-section-142-of-the-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":350998,"position":4},"title":"Section 142A of NI Act, 1881 gives retrospectivity to Section 142 of the Act","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 3, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Dealing with the nature of Sections 142 and 142A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the Court held that Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter alia\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223277,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/16\/ker-hc-acquittal-from-offence-under-s-138-ni-act-upheld-where-cheque-not-drawn-on-account-maintained-by-the-accused\/","url_meta":{"origin":350998,"position":5},"title":"Ker HC | Acquittal from offence under S. 138 NI Act upheld where cheque not drawn on account maintained by the accused","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. rejected this petition in which the petitioner prayed to file an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial court, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This petition was filed by the petitioner to seek relief\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350998\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}