Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

Cheque Bounce and Section 138 NI Act: Detailed Legal Analysis with Recent Case Law By Abhishek Jat, Advocate, Gwalior High Court What is Cheque Bounce? A cheque bounce, or dishonour of cheque, happens when a cheque presented to the bank is returned unpaid. The most common reason is insufficient funds in the account, but other grounds include mismatched signatures, overwriting, stale or post-dated cheques, or stop-payment instructions. Cheque bounce disrupts financial reliability and can have serious legal consequences for the drawer, especially under Indian law. Legal Framework: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminalizes the act of issuing a cheque that is dishonoured for insufficient funds or if it exceeds the arrangement with the bank. The law aims to ensure the credibility of cheque transactions and penalize those who issue cheques without maintaining adequate funds. The penalty can include imprisonment up to two ...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Indian criminal justice system’s approach to FIRs and chargesheets is the result of a nuanced interplay between statutory law and judicial interpretation. Over the years, the Supreme Court and High Courts have delivered a series of transformative judgments that have clarified the powers of the police, the rights of the accused and complainants, and the supervisory role of the judiciary. This article presents a detailed analysis of these landmark rulings, reshuffling their order to offer fresh perspective on their collective impact.

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Case Title: Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019] Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Factual Matrix The Supreme Court addressed an appeal arising from a protracted dowry-related prosecution, where the appellant, Rajesh Chaddha, had been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complainant, Mala Chaddha, had alleged persistent mental and physical harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimonies of the complainant and her father, with no corroborative medical or documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations of physical cruelty or miscarriage. Procedural History The trial court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 323/34 and 506 IPC due to lack of evidence but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is a robust legislative framework designed to combat the menace of money laundering in India. A recurring legal conundrum under the Act is whether properties acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be attached as "proceeds of crime," especially when the actual tainted property is unavailable. The recent decision of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in Sadananda Nayak v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar (FPA-PMLA-5612/BBS/2023, decided 14.10.2024) has provided significant clarity on this issue. Factual Matrix Appellant: Shri Sadananda Nayak, a sub-contractor with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Sunabeda, Odisha, for nearly 40 years. Allegations: In 2017, the then Finance Manager of HAL, Mr. Bhaben Maitra, allegedly credited substantial sums to the appellant’s account without consent. Under threat and intimidation, Mr. Nayak withdrew...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Background The Supreme Court, in the matter of  M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.  (Civil Appeal Nos. 5405-5406 of 2025), addressed the question of whether a subsequent purchaser of property should be added as a party to a suit for specific performance, even though such a purchaser may not be strictly necessary for the suit’s outcome. Factual Matrix The dispute revolved around agricultural land originally owned by Indramohan Pradhan. Conflicting claims arose due to two separate wills and multiple agreements to sell, resulting in three parties asserting title over the same property: The appellant (original defendant no. 8), claiming ownership through a registered sale deed executed by a beneficiary under one will. The original plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the testator’s sons, beneficiaries under another will. The original defendant no. 4, w...