SC issues guidelines for cheque bounce cases, asks govt to amend laws

 

SC issues guidelines for cheque bounce cases, asks govt to amend laws



The SC said that over the years, courts have been inundated with cheque bounce complaints which could not be decided within a reasonable period and “this gargantuan pendency of complaints … has had an adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases.”

To ensure speedy disposal of more than 35 lakh cheque bounce cases pending in various courts, the Supreme Court on Friday gave a number of directions, including asking the government to amend the laws to allow clubbing of multiple trials in cases filed for a same transaction against anyone.

To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to reduce the burden on the docket of the criminal courts, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice S A Bobde recommended that “suitable amendments” be made in the Negotiable Instruments Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 committed within a period of 12 months.

Of the 2.31 crore pending criminal cases, 35.16 lakh relate to dishonoured cheques. The reason for the backlog of cases, according to amici curiae, is that while there is a steady increase in complaints every year, the rate of disposal does not match the rate of institution of complaints.

The SC said that over the years, courts have been inundated with cheque bounce complaints which could not be decided within a reasonable period and “this gargantuan pendency of complaints … has had an adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases.”

Stating that undue delay in service of summons is the main cause for the disproportionate accumulation of complaints under Section 138 before the courts, the judges requested the high courts to issue practice directions to the trial courts to treat service of summons in one complaint pertaining to a transaction as deemed service for all complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the transaction.

It directed that the HCs may issue practice directions to the magistrates to record cogent and sufficient reasons before converting summary trial to summons trial in exercise of power under the second proviso to Section 143 of the Act. Even the examination of witnesses should be permitted on affidavit and only in exceptional cases, the magistrate may examine the witnesses personally, it said.

On March 5 last year, the top court had registered a suo motu case and decided to evolve a concerted and coordinated mechanism for speedy disposal of such cases. It had appointed senior advocate Siddharth Luthra and advocate K Parameshwar as amici curiae.

The SC had sought the Centre’s view on creating additional courts to deal with cheque bounce cases. However, the Centre, through the Department of Financial Services (DFS), had dismissed the suggestion. Instead of setting up additional special courts, the DFS had suggested measures like capping the maximum number of hearings.



Comments

  1. People offering payments should be got accepted to the cheque bearers with some interest.lawyers take contract and pay bearers the settled amount and harrasre payers to pay double or more and threat for imprisonment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent read, Positive site, I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style. I really appreciate your work.If you require aboutnew business registration delhi | bust auditors delhi please click on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Being businessman, good move. Will improve business relationship as check issuer need to be honest with fast court settlement. With NEFT check usage is reduced but suitable only for advance payment and this move will lead to credit purchase

    ReplyDelete
  4. NI 138 max misused by NBFC's by presenting and filling the blank security cheques of the loan borrowers !!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am behind my lawyer and lawyer is dependent on court. I am depending on God 🙏

    ReplyDelete
  6. ITS BEEN 10 YEARS SINCE I FILED A CHEQUE RETURN CASE ON A LADY HERE IN TAMILNADU. NO RESULT TILL NOW. WORST GOVERNENCE, WORST LAW RULES.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any economic offense must be treated as criminal offense with hefty fine & minimum 3 months imprisonment. Fear is the key

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this is the only solution available for the type of people we are and nothing else works.Good suggeastin Appreciated.keep it up

      Delete
    2. Cheque paid as Award for Recovery against Court Decree got bounced, it is 6th year but no result.
      It may also be thought of that the presenting bank files recovery under NI138 on charging nominal fee to save on harassment...

      Delete
  8. we also waiting from one and half year no response from anyone very bad, how to believe in laws

    ReplyDelete
  9. filed a case ..god knows when it would be finlsed

    ReplyDelete
  10. Realy a good move it should be done.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It take two years for summons to reach convicted in Rajkot,as old conventional procedures are truly responsible for this delays and undue advantage is taken by lawyers as they charge for every hearing,in this mobile and computer age,need to change our system of communication,otherwise God help for this huge pending cases , unavoidable loggins and burden will continue,even having strong instrument of 138 section,will not give justice to anyone,till prompt verdicts and support with speedy communication are in execution.India law ministry should take deep concern and revoltunise proceedings so victim gets justice in time , otherwise undue harassment for every time charges from lawyers,as our country is still 60-65% illetracy is exploited by selfish lawyers,not all but majorly,that's taking due advantage of this slow law system of India,for mere amount of 2.32 lacs ,I am still fighting since last four years for my just recoveries

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent proposition . Persons issuing cheques should realise the serious consequences
    of their cheque bouncing especially in cases of repayment of borrowed money. Honest
    lawyers should help in this proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent proposition . Persons issuing cheques should realise the serious consequences
    of their cheque bouncing especially in cases of repayment of borrowed money. Honest
    lawyers should help in this proposal. Ashok Srinivasan

    ReplyDelete
  14. Almost 2 yrs passed, cheque bouncing cases of rs. 2 crores been registered, summons issued, warrant issue by court but who cares.....only victim & his family suffers & criminal enjoys the money is just because of indian law has no fear & police not taking proper action on time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 138 cases should despose off as early as possible

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sir out of 35 lakh cases of cheque bounce more than 50% cases filled by unauthirised money lenders who have give money on the security if cheques on higher rate if interest 10 to 20 percent. He has no licence for mony landing. Most of these moneylanders are gundas. If amendment un NI 1938 that only legal moneylenders with licence can file case of cheque bounce then automatically reduces the cases upto approx 50%. Kindly look in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There are several false cases filed against non executive / independent directors without enquiry about the category of directors in case company is a main accused ... This can be easily ascertained with the help of MCA data available on the MCA portal. Fastening case against these type directors unnecessary increases the number of pending cases. Sec 142 states that those who are in charge of the management are responsible and ID are not part of executive functions of a co, hence no more responsible. There the SC must consider this if really like to help the society.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Solution is more magistrate and more court.infrastructure of judicial system is very poor.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lockdown mein last year sab kuch maf the ab bank wale intersrt mang rahe hai kyo sc ke koi value hai ya sab ko pagal bana rahe hu sc court value hai sc court ke to bole bank ko extra emi kyo le rahe hai complanit kaha kare

    ReplyDelete
  20. Idfc bank or kotak bank extra emi le raha hai sc court ne bola tha koi extra nhi lagega ab kyo extra mang rahe hai sc court ke koi value hai ya nhi reply karo

    ReplyDelete
  21. why not make it mandatory to mark Aadhar and (or) PAN# of the person issuing the cheque let it be individual or businesses. when the bank can print the name of the person let it also print PAN &(or) Aadhar#.
    The moment cheques is bounced the information/ complaint is registered in CIBIL records by a provision enabled to register such complaints, An interest and damages starts adding to the drawer and also it reflects on the bank records and if it is not settled within three months irrespective of the amount the disputed amount would not be allowed to be withdrawn from the account or accounts collectively. in the case of business all bank fecility like OD/CC will be authorised further only if the dispute is settled and moreover the drawer cannot go abroad for any reason whatsoever unless this is settled or close the account nor open a new one. the case has to close once the said amount is paid to the beneficiary thro the bank for which the Bank is paid a fee by the drawer to close the subject at the drawre's end.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senior Citizen Train Ticket Discount: Government has issued a new statement regarding giving discount to senior citizens on train tickets, know the details here

Cash Transaction Rules: Income tax rules on cash transaction between Husband-Wife and Son-Father, know rules

Have a Current/Savings Bank Account? Know the Cash Deposit Limits under Income Tax Act to avoid Penalties and Notices