Type to filter the sections on this page · press Enter to search the whole site.
No section on this page matches — press Enter to search the whole site instead.
Process at a Glance
How the Cheque Bounce Process Moves
1
Collect Bank Return Memo — Start the Clock
→
2
Send Legal Demand Notice Within 30 Days
→
3
Wait 15 Days for Payment
→
4
File Verified Complaint Before Judicial Magistrate First Class
→
5
Trial — Evidence and S.139 Presumption
→
6
Judgment, Sentence & Compounding
Overview
Cheque Bounce — Section 138 NI Act
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 creates a criminal offence when a cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds or because the amount exceeds the arrangement with the bank. Essential conditions: (1) Cheque must be drawn for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability; (2) Cheque must be returned unpaid by the drawee bank; (3) Payee must give written demand notice within 30 days of receiving the bank return memo; (4) Drawer fails to pay within 15 days of notice; (5) Complaint must be filed within one month of expiry of the 15-day period. Punishment: imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both.
Section 139 creates a presumption in favour of the complainant — once the cheque and dishonour are proved, the court presumes it was for a legally enforceable debt. Section 143A (inserted by 2018 Amendment): court can order interim compensation up to 20% of the cheque amount once the accused pleads not guilty. Section 141: director/officer vicarious liability for company cheques. Territorial jurisdiction: the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 inserted Section 142(2) and Section 142A — for an account-payee cheque the complaint is filed at the court where the payee maintains the bank account in which the cheque was deposited for collection (the payee's home branch). This reversed the earlier accused-centric position in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014); the Supreme Court in Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. (2025) has authoritatively confirmed this payee's-home-branch rule.
When someone gives you a cheque and it bounces — you can take criminal action under Section 138 NI Act. The process: bank returns the cheque → you send a legal notice within 30 days → the person has 15 days to pay → if no payment, you file a complaint in court within 30 days. The court assumes the cheque was given for a real debt — the accused must prove otherwise. On conviction: up to 2 years jail or fine up to 2× the cheque amount. You can also ask for 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation once the accused pleads not guilty under Section 143A.
Key Takeaways
- A cheque-bounce offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises only where the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability and is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or because it exceeds the arrangement.
- The complainant must follow a strict timeline: present the cheque within its validity (three months), issue a written demand notice within 30 days of the bank’s return memo, wait 15 days for payment, and file the complaint within 30 days after that period expires (Section 142).
- Section 139 raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt; the burden is on the accused to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities (Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, 2010).
- After the 2015 amendment, jurisdiction lies where the payee’s bank branch is located (Sections 142(2) / 142A), overriding Dashrath Rupsingh (2014).
- The court may order interim compensation up to 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A, an appellate court may require a 20% deposit under Section 148 (Surinder Singh Deswal, 2019), and the offence is compoundable at any stage under Section 147.
- The offence is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or a fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both; from 1 July 2024 the trial is read with the BNSS, though Section 138 itself is unchanged.
Essential Conditions
Essential Conditions for S.138 Offence
1. Legally Enforceable Debt
The cheque must be drawn for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. A gift cheque or a cheque given for an illegal consideration does not attract S.138. Section 139 creates a presumption — court presumes the cheque was for a debt. The accused must rebut this presumption on balance of probabilities either by leading its own evidence or by relying on the material brought on record by the complainant — a bare denial is not enough (Rangappa, 2010).
2. Cheque Returned Unpaid by Bank
The cheque must be returned unpaid by the drawee bank due to insufficient funds or amount exceeding the arrangement. Other reasons — payment stopped by drawer, account closed, signature mismatch — may also attract S.138 in appropriate circumstances. The bank return memo is essential documentary evidence — preserve the original cheque, return memo, and deposit slip. The date on the return memo starts the 30-day notice clock.
3. Legal Notice Within 30 Days — MANDATORY
Written demand notice must be sent to the drawer within 30 days of the date of the bank return memo. This 30-day deadline is strict and fatal if missed — the S.138 complaint cannot be filed for that dishonour. Send by registered post with AD to the drawer's address on the cheque or bank records. Even if notice is returned undelivered — it is presumed served if correctly addressed and sent by registered post, unless the drawer proves otherwise (C.C. Alavi Haji, 2007). Notice by e-mail or WhatsApp has been accepted by some courts, but the position is not uniform — always send by registered/speed post as well.
4. Failure to Pay Within 15 Days
After the notice is served (or deemed served), the drawer has 15 days to make payment of the cheque amount. Full payment within 15 days extinguishes the offence — complaint cannot be filed. Partial payment does NOT discharge the offence — the remaining dishonoured amount is still prosecutable. The 15-day window is the drawer's opportunity to avoid criminal liability.
5. Complaint Within One Month — MANDATORY
If the drawer fails to pay within 15 days — the complainant must file the criminal complaint before the Magistrate within one month of the expiry of the 15-day period. This deadline is mandatory. The total outer timeline is approximately 75 days from the date of the bank return memo. Delay beyond one month can only be condoned on sufficient cause under the proviso to S.142(1)(b) — courts are strict.
6. Territorial Jurisdiction — S.142(2) (2015 Amendment)
Under Section 142(2) NI Act (inserted by the 2015 Amendment) — for an account-payee cheque the complaint must be filed before the court within whose local jurisdiction the payee maintains the bank account in which the cheque was deposited for collection (the payee's home branch). This corrected the difficult drawee-bank rule laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014). The Supreme Court in Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. (2025) confirmed this and held the contrary view in Yogesh Upadhyay (2023) to be per incuriam. In Delhi: file at the JMFC Court having jurisdiction over the area of your own (payee's) bank branch.
Law Changes
Key Amendments & Changes in S.138 Law
| Aspect | Earlier Position | Current Position |
|---|---|---|
| Territorial jurisdiction | Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014) fixed jurisdiction at the drawee bank (where the cheque was dishonoured) — forcing payees to litigate at the drawer's bank location | NI (Amendment) Act, 2015 inserted S.142(2) and S.142A — jurisdiction now lies at the payee's home branch (where the cheque is deposited for collection). Confirmed by SC in Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. (2025), which declared Yogesh Upadhyay (2023) per incuriam |
| Interim compensation | Not available — only final compensation on conviction at end of trial | S.143A NI Act (inserted 2018): Court may direct interim compensation up to 20% of cheque amount once the accused pleads not guilty. Payment within 60 days. Refundable with interest if accused acquitted |
| Presumption under S.139 | Narrowly interpreted — complainant had to prove the debt in more detail | S.139: Strong presumption that cheque was for a legally enforceable debt. SC in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010): accused must rebut on a preponderance of probabilities and may do so on the complainant’s own material — bare denial insufficient |
| Director liability for company cheques | Confusion about who must be prosecuted — managing director vs all directors | S.141 NI Act: persons-in-charge of and responsible for company's business at time of offence are liable. SC in N.K. Wahi (2007): specific averments about each director's role required — mere designation as director not sufficient |
| Deposit in appeal — S.148 | Accused could appeal without any financial deposit — used to delay proceedings | S.148 NI Act (inserted 2018): Appellate court may direct the accused to deposit at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. SC in Surinder Singh Deswal (2019): ordinarily the rule — exemption only in exceptional cases for special reasons (Jamboo Bhandari, 2023) |
| Compounding — S.147 | Courts had discretion on whether to accept compounding | SC in Meters & Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta (2018): S.138 offence is compoundable under S.147 at any stage, including appeal; compounding requires the consent of both parties, and courts encourage settlement |
Procedure
S.138 NI Act — Step by Step
1
Collect Bank Return Memo — Start the Clock
When the cheque is returned by the bank — collect the cheque return memo from your bank branch immediately. The return memo records the reason for dishonour (insufficient funds, account closed, payment stopped, signature mismatch, etc.). Preserve the original cheque, return memo, and the deposit slip / bank passbook entry. The date on the return memo starts the 30-day notice clock — never delay in collecting it. Every day of delay reduces your available time.
2
Send Legal Demand Notice Within 30 Days
Draft a written demand notice to the drawer — demanding payment of the cheque amount within 15 days. Send by registered post with Acknowledgment Due (AD) to all known addresses of the drawer — the address on the cheque, bank records, and any other known address. Keep: copy of the notice, postal receipts, AD card. If the notice is returned undelivered — it is still deemed served if sent to the correct address (SC has consistently held this). Track the delivery online using India Post's tracking system.
3
Wait 15 Days for Payment
After the notice is served or deemed served — the drawer has 15 days to pay the full cheque amount. If full payment is received within 15 days — the matter is resolved and no complaint can be filed. If no payment or only partial payment within 15 days — the cause of action under S.138 is complete. Count carefully from the date of service (not the date of sending). Now file the complaint within one month of expiry of this 15-day window.
4
File Verified Complaint Before Judicial Magistrate First Class
File the verified complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court having jurisdiction over the payee's home branch (where the cheque was deposited for collection) — S.142(2) NI Act (2015 Amendment), as confirmed in Jai Balaji (2025). Attach: original cheque, bank return memo, copy of legal notice, postal receipts, AD card, proof of service, and any documents proving the underlying debt. Pay court fee. Court registers the case. Once the accused pleads not guilty (summary/summons trial) — apply for interim compensation under S.143A (up to 20% of the cheque amount).
5
Trial — Evidence and S.139 Presumption
Complainant (payee) is examined as a witness — exhibits: original cheque, return memo, notice, postal AD card, underlying transaction documents. The presumption under S.139 operates in complainant's favour — court presumes the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt. The accused must rebut this presumption on the balance of probabilities either through own evidence or from the material on record (Rangappa, 2010). Common defences: no debt exists, cheque was security, different amount, forged signature, coercion. Cross-examination of complainant by defence is the critical stage.
6
Judgment, Sentence & Compounding
On conviction — court awards imprisonment (up to 2 years) and/or fine (up to 2× cheque amount). Court may also award compensation to complainant under S.395 BNSS from the fine amount. Compounding: S.147 NI Act — S.138 is compoundable at any stage. SC in Meters & Instruments (2018): compounding requires the consent of both parties; courts encourage settlement. In practice, most S.138 cases settle via compounding once conviction appears likely — accused pays cheque amount plus interest and legal costs in exchange for complaint withdrawal.
Important Note
The notice clock is unforgiving: the demand notice must be sent within 30 days of receiving the bank’s cheque-return memo, and the complaint filed within one month after the 15-day payment window closes. A complaint filed before the 15 days expire is premature and not maintainable, while a delayed one can be fatal unless the delay is condoned for sufficient cause (under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b); in S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya, 2026 INSC 27 (06.01.2026), the Supreme Court held that the delay must be condoned before cognizance is taken). After the 2015 amendment, file where the payee’s bank branch is located — not where the drawer banks.
Documents
Documents Required
For filing S.138 NI Act complaint (complainant):
Original dishonoured cheque (front and back)
Bank return memo / ECS return memo showing reason for dishonour
Copy of legal demand notice sent to drawer
Postal receipts + Acknowledgment Due (AD) card
India Post track & trace printout showing delivery status
Complainant's Aadhaar / PAN / ID proof
Documents proving underlying debt / transaction (agreement, invoice, etc.)
Bank statement / passbook showing cheque deposit and return
Additional documents for company cheques (S.141 cases):
MCA register / company documents showing directors and their roles
Authorization letter / resolution authorising cheque signatory
Practical Tip
Send the statutory demand notice by registered post / speed post with acknowledgement (keep the dispatch receipt and tracking) to the drawer’s correct address — service, or deemed service on refusal, is the foundation of the case (C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007; Shakti Travel & Tours, 2000). Attach the dishonoured cheque, the bank return memo, a copy of the notice and its dispatch proof to the complaint. Each separately dishonoured cheque is a distinct cause of action, so more than one complaint is permissible (Sumit Bansal, 2026). Because the offence is compoundable under Section 147, keep settlement on the table — courts encourage compounding at every stage.
Key Points
Key Deadlines & Points
⏱ Key Deadlines — Section 138 NI Act
Notice from date of bank return memoWithin 30 days — MANDATORY
Drawer's payment window after notice15 days from notice receipt
Complaint filing after 15-day expiryWithin one month — MANDATORY (S.142(1)(b))
Total outer timeline (approximate)~75 days from bank return memo
Interim compensation — S.143A (2018)Up to 20% of cheque amount — once the accused pleads not guilty
Punishment on convictionUp to 2 years imprisonment + fine up to 2× cheque amount
Territorial jurisdictionCourt at the payee's home branch — S.142(2) NI Act (2015 Amendment); Jai Balaji (2025)
Compounding — S.147 NI ActPermissible at any stage — with the consent of both parties
Deposit in appeal — S.148 (2018)At least 20% of fine/compensation — ordinarily directed
Cheque validity period (RBI)3 months from date on cheque
Applicable Laws
Relevant Statutes
Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque · NI Act, 1881
“Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.”— Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (India Code)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138–148
S.138: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds — criminal offence + punishment. S.139: Presumption in favour of complainant — court presumes cheque was for a legally enforceable debt. S.140: Defence of no knowledge of insufficiency not available. S.141: Offences by companies — vicarious liability of directors and persons-in-charge. S.142: Cognisance of offences — 30-day complaint filing requirement; S.142(2) (inserted 2015) fixes territorial jurisdiction at the payee's home branch. S.143: Summary trial procedure for S.138 cases. S.143A: Interim compensation up to 20% once the accused pleads not guilty (2018). S.147: S.138 is compoundable — settlement permissible at any stage. S.148: Appellate court may direct deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation in an appeal against conviction (2018).
View on India Code →
BNSS 2023 / CrPC 1973 — Procedural Framework
S.138 NI Act cases are tried as Magistrate-level criminal matters — procedure governed by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) for cases filed after 1 July 2024, and CrPC 1973 for older pending cases. Key provisions: complaint by complainant (S.223 BNSS / S.200 CrPC), cognisance (S.210 BNSS), summons to accused. NI Act's own S.143 mandates summary trial procedure — a streamlined route under the NI Act. Judicial Magistrate First Class Courts in Delhi have jurisdiction.
NI Amendment Acts, 2015 & 2018 — Sections 142(2), 142A, 143A and 148
The 2015 Amendment inserted S.142(2) and S.142A, fixing territorial jurisdiction at the payee's home branch (reversing the drawee-bank rule in Dashrath 2014; confirmed by the SC in Jai Balaji v. HEG Ltd., 2025). Two further amendments in 2018 strengthened the complainant's position: S.143A: Court may direct interim compensation up to 20% of cheque amount once the accused pleads not guilty — payable within 60 days — refundable with interest if accused acquitted. S.148: In an appeal against conviction — the appellate court may direct the accused to deposit at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. SC in Surinder Singh Deswal (2019): ordinarily the rule — exemption only in exceptional cases for special reasons (Jamboo Bhandari, 2023).
Companies Act, 2013 & Section 141 NI Act
When a company draws a cheque — S.141 NI Act creates vicarious liability for: (a) every person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the time of the offence; and (b) every director, manager, secretary, or officer who consented to, connived at, or whose neglect facilitated the offence. All such persons may be prosecuted along with the company. SC in N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh (2007): complaint must contain specific averments about each accused director's role — merely naming all directors without specific allegations is not permissible.
View on India Code →
Limitation Act, 1963 — Civil Recovery Parallel Remedy
While S.138 NI Act provides specific criminal timelines, a parallel civil suit for recovery of the cheque amount is also available — ordinarily within three years under the Limitation Act, 1963 (the applicable Article and the starting point depend on the nature of the claim). A civil suit for recovery and a S.138 criminal complaint are independent and parallel remedies — both can be filed simultaneously. The civil suit recovers the debt; the criminal complaint provides punishment. Compounding of the criminal case does not automatically settle the civil liability.
View on India Code →
Judgments
Landmark & Recent Judgments
1
Recent — 2025 SC: Cash Loan Above Rs 20,000 and s.138 Trial Guidelines
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.
Supreme Court of India | 2025 INSC 1158 | Justices Manmohan & N.V. Anjaria | Decided: 25.09.2025
Once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise. A cash loan exceeding Rs 20,000 given in breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not by itself make the debt legally unenforceable; it attracts only a penalty under Section 271D. Failure to reply to the statutory notice may support an inference against the drawer. The Court also issued procedural directions for Section 138 trials (including service of summons, online payment options and early interim compensation) and revised the costs for compounding at different stages.
View on Indian Kanoon →
2
Recent — 2025 SC: Demand Notice Must State the Cheque Amount
Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul
Supreme Court of India | 2025 INSC 1133 | Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice N.V. Anjaria | Decided: 19.09.2025
The demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 must demand the cheque amount. Interest or costs may be added only where the cheque amount is separately specified. A notice demanding a different sum from the amount of the cheque is invalid even if the cheque number is correctly mentioned, and the defect cannot be cured by reading the notice as a whole. The Delhi High Court's order quashing the complaint was upheld.
View on Indian Kanoon →
3
Recent — 2025 SC: Non-Executive Directors and s.141
K.S. Mehta v. M/s Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India | 2025 INSC 315 | Justices B.V. Nagarathna & Satish Chandra Sharma | Decided: 04.03.2025
Non-executive or independent directors who did not sign the cheques and had no role in the company's financial affairs cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 without specific averments showing that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. Attendance at board meetings is not enough. The complaints against the appellant directors were quashed.
View on Indian Kanoon →
4
Recent — Multiple Complaints S.138 (2026)
Sumit Bansal v. M/s. MGI Developers & Promoters
Supreme Court of India | 2026 INSC 40 | JJ. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Sanjay Karol | Decided: 08.01.2026
Multiple cheques arising from the same transaction give rise to separate and independent causes of action under Section 138 NI Act — one for each dishonoured cheque, provided each is independently presented, dishonoured, and followed by the requisite statutory notice. Multiplicity of complaints does not constitute abuse of process. High Courts must exercise caution before quashing at the threshold where statutory requirements are fulfilled for each cheque.
View on Indian Kanoon →
5
Recent — Jurisdiction Conclusively Settled
Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s HEG Ltd.
Supreme Court of India | 2025 INSC 1362 | Decided: 28.11.2025
Conclusively settled the long-running controversy over territorial jurisdiction under S.138 after the 2015 Amendment. For an account-payee cheque, jurisdiction lies only with the court within whose local jurisdiction the payee maintains the bank account in which the cheque was deposited for collection — the payee's home branch. The Court explained the deeming fiction in the Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) and held that the mere place of physical deposit at another branch does not shift jurisdiction. It declared the earlier decision in Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd. (2023) to be per incuriam for having ignored the statutory Explanation, and confirmed that the 2015 Amendment created a special jurisdictional regime overriding the general provisions of the CrPC/BNSS.
View on Indian Kanoon →
6
Recent — Expeditious Trial Directions (Constitution Bench)
In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881
Supreme Court of India | (2021) 16 SCC 116 | 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325 | Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) No. 2 of 2020 | 5-Judge Constitution Bench | Decided: 16.04.2021 | CJI S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna & S. Ravindra Bhat JJ
Concerned that complaints for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 account for a very large share of pendency in the trial courts, the Constitution Bench issued comprehensive directions for their expeditious trial. Magistrates must record cogent and sufficient reasons before converting a Section 138 complaint from a summary trial to a summons trial, instead of doing so mechanically; an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is contemplated where the accused resides beyond the court’s territorial jurisdiction; and the Court held that Section 258 CrPC (power to stop proceedings) does not apply to Section 138 complaints — to that extent the view in Meters and Instruments (2018) does not lay down the correct law. An Expert Committee was constituted to streamline the procedure further.
View Judgment (Supreme Court) →
7
Recent — IBC Moratorium & S.138 (Company vs Directors)
P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India | (2021) 6 SCC 258 | Decided: 01.03.2021
The Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 covers and stays Section 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor (the company), since a Section 138 prosecution is in substance a quasi-civil remedy to recover the cheque amount. Crucially, however, the moratorium does NOT protect the company's directors and signatories who are vicariously liable under Section 141 — proceedings against them continue. The cheque holder may lodge its claim as an operational creditor in the company's insolvency.
View on Indian Kanoon →
8
Recent — S.143A Interim Compensation
G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana
Supreme Court of India | AIR 2019 SC 3817 | Decided: 30.07.2019
SC clarified the scope of S.143A NI Act (2018 Amendment — interim compensation up to 20% of cheque amount): S.143A is prospective in nature — it is confined to cases where the offence was committed after the provision came into force (01.09.2018), and cannot be applied to earlier offences. (Under the Act itself, interim compensation is payable within 60 days, extendable by 30 days; it is recoverable as a fine; and if the accused is acquitted it is repayable with interest at the RBI bank rate. In Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 15.03.2024, the Supreme Court held that the power is discretionary and laid down parameters, including a prima facie evaluation of the merits.)
View on Indian Kanoon →
9
Recent — S.148 Appeal Deposit
Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi
Supreme Court of India | (2019) 11 SCC 341 | Decided: 29.05.2019
SC held that although S.148 NI Act uses the word “may”, a direction to deposit at least 20% of the fine or compensation is ordinarily the rule, and not directing it is an exception for which special reasons must be given. The deposit is payable within 60 days, extendable by up to 30 days for sufficient cause. In Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC (04.09.2023) the Court added that the appellate court must consider whether the case is an exceptional one before directing deposit. This provision prevents the accused from using the appeal process merely to delay payment without any financial consequence — a common tactic in S.138 cases before the 2018 Amendment.
View on Indian Kanoon →
10
Landmark — Compounding & Quasi-Civil Nature
Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta
Supreme Court of India | (2018) 1 SCC 560 | Decided: 05.10.2017
S.138 NI Act offence is compoundable under S.147 at any stage of the proceedings — including at the stage of appeal. Compounding requires the consent of both parties. The Court further observed that even without such consent the court could close the proceedings if the complainant was duly compensated — but that part, resting on Section 258 CrPC, was later held not to be correct law by the Constitution Bench in In Re: Expeditious Trial (2021). The SC also noted that S.138 offence is quasi-civil in nature — its primary objective is recovery of money, not punishment for its own sake. Courts should actively encourage settlement and should not insist on a full trial when parties are willing to compromise. Settlement at any stage — including after conviction and during appeal — is encouraged.
View on Indian Kanoon →
11
Landmark — Jurisdiction (Superseded by 2015 Amendment)
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Supreme Court of India | (2014) 9 SCC 129 | 3-Judge Bench | Decided: 01.08.2014
A 3-Judge Bench held that the only court having territorial jurisdiction over a S.138 complaint is the court where the drawee bank (the drawer's bank, where the cheque was dishonoured) is located. While this ended forum-shopping, it forced payees to litigate far from home — at the drawer's bank location. Because of the resulting hardship to complainants, Parliament reversed this position through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Sections 142(2) and 142A), shifting jurisdiction to the payee's home branch. Dashrath therefore no longer states the operative jurisdictional rule, though it remains important for understanding the pre-2015 position.
View on Indian Kanoon →
12
Landmark — S.139 Presumption Rebuttable
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
Supreme Court of India | (2010) 11 SCC 441 | Decided: 07.05.2010
Held that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act — that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt — is a rebuttable presumption. The accused must rebut it on the balance of probabilities — not beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt. A bare denial does not suffice; but the accused may rebut the presumption by relying on the material brought on record by the complainant, and in some cases may not need to adduce evidence of his own.
View on Indian Kanoon →
13
Landmark — Director Liability Requires Specific Averments
N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh & Ors.
Supreme Court of India | (2007) 9 SCC 481 | Decided: 09.03.2007
Held that for vicarious liability of directors under S.141 NI Act — the complaint must contain specific averments about the role of each accused director — specifically that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence. A blanket implication of all directors without specific averments is impermissible. If the complaint lacks these specific averments against a particular director — that director can apply for discharge. The mere fact of being listed as a director on MCA records is not sufficient to attract S.141 liability.
View on Indian Kanoon →
Recent Developments
Recent Developments
2026 — Supreme Court
Multiple Complaints, Condonation Before Cognizance, Director Liability, IBC Question Referred
A run of 2026 rulings has sharpened Section 138 practice. In Sumit Bansal v. MGI Developers (Jan 2026) the Court held that multiplicity of complaints is not, by itself, an abuse of process where each dishonour satisfies the statutory sequence. In S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya (06.01.2026) it held that where a complaint is filed late, the delay must be condoned before cognizance is taken. In Saroj Pandey v. State (NCT of Delhi) (07.04.2026, non-reportable) it quashed the summons against a director where the only basis for alleging her day-to-day involvement was that she had signed Board Resolutions. And in Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank (2026 INSC 579, 27.05.2026) a two-Judge Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for a three-Judge Bench, framing the question whether the moratorium under Part III of the IBC (individual insolvency) applies to the entire Section 138 proceeding or only to its compensatory aspect.
2018 — NI Amendment
S.143A and S.148 — Complainant's Position Strengthened
NI Amendment Act 2018 introduced S.143A (interim compensation — up to 20% once the accused pleads not guilty) and S.148 (deposit of at least 20% in appeal against conviction). SC in G.J. Raja (2019) and Surinder Singh Deswal (2019) provided detailed implementation guidance. These provisions significantly improve the complainant's position and ensure tangible financial relief during trial rather than only at the end.
2021 — Supreme Court (Constitution Bench)
Directions for Expeditious Trial of S.138 Cases
In In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 (16.04.2021), a five-Judge Bench directed Magistrates to record reasons before converting a summary trial into a summons trial, required an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC where the accused resides beyond the court’s jurisdiction, and held that Section 258 CrPC does not apply to Section 138 complaints.
2025 — Supreme Court
Jurisdiction Settled at Payee's Home Branch — Jai Balaji (2025)
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014) had fixed jurisdiction at the drawee bank, causing hardship to payees. The NI (Amendment) Act, 2015 (S.142(2), S.142A) reversed this to the payee's home branch. In Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. (2025), the Supreme Court authoritatively confirmed that for account-payee cheques jurisdiction lies where the payee maintains its account, and declared Yogesh Upadhyay (2023) per incuriam. All Delhi S.138 complaints are now filed at the JMFC Court for the payee's own bank branch area.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the time limit for sending the legal notice after cheque bounces?
The demand notice must be sent within 30 days of the date of the bank return memo — the document given by your bank showing the cheque has been returned. This 30-day deadline is strict and mandatory — it cannot be extended. If the notice is not sent within 30 days, the S.138 complaint cannot be filed and the case is lost for that particular dishonour. If the cheque is dishonoured again on a fresh presentation — a fresh 30-day notice period starts from the new return memo date. Always track the return memo date carefully and consult an advocate immediately.
What is the presumption under Section 139 NI Act?
Section 139 NI Act creates a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant — the court shall presume (unless the contrary is proved) that the cheque was given for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Once the complainant proves: (1) the cheque was signed by the accused, and (2) the cheque was dishonoured — the court presumes there was a real debt. The accused must then rebut this presumption on a preponderance of probabilities — by leading evidence or by relying on the material on record, including the complainant’s own evidence (Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, 2010). A bare denial is not enough.
Can interim compensation be claimed before the trial ends?
Yes — Section 143A NI Act (inserted by 2018 Amendment) empowers the Magistrate to direct the accused to pay interim compensation up to 20% of the cheque amount once the accused pleads not guilty, before the trial concludes. The payment must be made within 60 days. The power is discretionary — not mandatory — the court considers the nature of the case and circumstances. If the accused is ultimately acquitted — the interim compensation is refunded with interest. SC in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana (2019) held that S.143A is prospective — confined to offences committed after it came into force (01.09.2018). In Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand (15.03.2024) the Supreme Court held that the power is discretionary and the court must first prima facie evaluate the merits of the complaint and the defence.
Where should the S.138 complaint be filed in Delhi?
Under Section 142(2) NI Act (inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015) — for an account-payee cheque the complaint must be filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court having jurisdiction over the payee's home branch (the branch where the payee maintains the account in which the cheque was deposited for collection). For example: if you deposited the cheque in your account at your Rohini branch — file at JMFC Court, Rohini; if your branch is in Karkardooma — file at JMFC Court, Karkardooma. This rule reversed the earlier drawee-bank position in Dashrath (2014) and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. (2025).
Can a cheque bounce case be settled out of court?
Yes — S.138 NI Act offence is compoundable under Section 147 NI Act. Settlement (compounding) is possible at any stage — before trial, during trial, after conviction, or during appeal. When the parties settle, the court records the compounding, which has the effect of an acquittal. SC in Meters and Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) noted that compounding requires the consent of both parties. In practice, most S.138 cases settle by the accused paying the cheque amount plus interest and legal costs in exchange for the complainant withdrawing the complaint.
Can all directors of a company be prosecuted for the company's cheque bounce?
Not automatically. Section 141 NI Act creates vicarious liability — but only for: (1) every person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence; and (2) every director or officer who consented to, connived at, or whose neglect facilitated the offence. SC in N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh (2007): the complaint must contain specific averments about each accused director's role. Merely naming all directors is not sufficient. Directors who were not involved in business conduct can apply for discharge if the complaint lacks specific averments against them.
What if the accused claims the cheque was given as security only?
The "cheque as security" defence is common but requires substantial evidence. The Supreme Court in Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand (28.10.2021) held that a cheque issued as security is not a worthless piece of paper — if the debt has become payable and is not repaid by the due date, the holder may present the cheque and its dishonour can attract Section 138. The accused must rebut the S.139 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, for example by showing that the underlying liability had not arisen on the date of presentation. Courts examine this defence on the facts of each case.
Does the legal notice need to be sent by registered post only?
The notice must be in writing and sent to the drawer. Registered post with Acknowledgment Due (AD) is the standard and safest practice. Speed post and courier with proof of delivery have also been accepted by courts. Notice by e-mail or WhatsApp has been accepted by some courts, but the position is not uniform — send by registered/speed post in every case. Even if the notice is returned undelivered (refused or unclaimed) — as long as it was sent to the correct address, the notice is deemed to have been served. The critical requirement is to send to all known addresses of the drawer and preserve all postal receipts.
What happens if the accused pays only part of the cheque amount after notice?
Partial payment within the 15-day notice period does NOT discharge the S.138 offence. The remaining unpaid amount of the cheque is still prosecutable as a cheque bounce offence. The complainant can file a S.138 complaint for the remaining dishonoured amount (after giving credit for the partial payment). Courts have consistently held that Section 138 NI Act requires full payment of the cheque amount within the 15-day period to extinguish the offence — partial payment merely reduces the amount in controversy but does not bar the complaint.
What is the punishment on conviction under Section 138?
On conviction under S.138 NI Act — the Magistrate may award: (1) Imprisonment up to 2 years; (2) Fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque; (3) Both imprisonment and fine together. In practice, courts typically award fine (up to 2× cheque amount) rather than imprisonment for first-time offenders in straightforward cases. Imprisonment is more commonly awarded in cases involving persistent default, large amounts, or where the accused has shown bad faith throughout proceedings. Under S.395 BNSS, the court may also award compensation to the complainant from the fine amount.
Self-Assessment
Test Your Knowledge — Cheque Bounce Quiz
🏦 Cheque Bounce — Section 138 NI Act
Glossary
Key Legal Terms
Section 138 NI Act
Criminal offence of cheque dishonour for insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement. Five essential conditions must all be satisfied. Punishment: up to 2 years imprisonment and/or fine up to 2× cheque amount.
Section 139 — Presumption
Statutory presumption in complainant's favour — court presumes cheque was for a legally enforceable debt once dishonour is proved. Accused must rebut on a preponderance of probabilities — by own evidence or from the material on record; bare denial insufficient (Rangappa, 2010).
Section 143A — Interim Compensation
Inserted by 2018 Amendment — court may direct accused to pay up to 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation once the accused pleads not guilty. Discretionary. Payable within 60 days. Refundable with interest if accused acquitted. G.J. Raja (2019) — prospective; applies to offences committed after 01.09.2018.
Section 141 — Director Liability
Vicarious liability of directors/persons-in-charge for company cheques. Complaint must contain specific averments about each accused's actual role in business conduct. Mere directorship without active business involvement is insufficient — N.K. Wahi (2007).
Section 147 — Compounding
S.138 NI Act is compoundable — settlement permissible at any stage including appeal. Compounding requires consent of both parties — Meters & Instruments (2018). Most S.138 cases settle by payment of cheque amount plus interest and costs.
Section 148 — Appeal Deposit
Inserted by 2018 Amendment — appellate court may direct the accused to deposit at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court; ordinarily the rule — exemption only in exceptional cases for special reasons (Jamboo Bhandari, 2023). Surinder Singh Deswal (2019).
Bank Return Memo
Document issued by the drawee bank when the cheque is returned unpaid — recording the reason for dishonour. The date on the return memo starts the 30-day notice clock. Essential documentary evidence in every S.138 case — preserve the original.
Territorial Jurisdiction (S.142(2), 2015)
Section 142(2) NI Act (inserted by the 2015 Amendment) fixes jurisdiction at the payee's home branch — where the cheque is deposited for collection. This reversed Dashrath (2014), which had fixed it at the drawee bank. Confirmed by SC in Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. (2025). All Delhi S.138 cases are filed at the JMFC Court for the payee's own bank branch area.
Was this page helpful?
Thank you — your feedback has been noted.
This is an informational guide and is reviewed periodically against the official sources cited above. If any provision appears outdated or an inadvertent error is noticed, it may be pointed out using the contact details on this page so that the content can be reviewed and corrected. Readers should verify the current statutory text and case law from authentic sources before relying on it.
