2023 (11) TMI 140 - HC - Indian Laws

Cheque dishonour case under Section 138 remains maintainable despite settlement for different amount

Alamgir Russel Anwar Versus Durgesh Chandra Sarkar & Anr.

The Calcutta HC dismissed a revisional application in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 N.I. Act. The petitioner argued that since an amicable ... Dishonour of Cheque - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - acquittal of accused of all charges - amicable settlement arrived at between both the parties - HELD THAT:- The contention of the petitioner that the claim of the balance amount on settlement not being the amount of cheque, the present proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act being not maintainable, is not in accordance with law, as the payment was not made between the date when cheque was drawn and the date when the cheque was presented on maturity, and on the date of presentation, the total cheque amount was payable by the petitioner towards an enforceable debt and liability. The revisional application is accordingly dismissed. Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to dishonored cheques, claims under the Negotiable Instrument Act, compromise settlements, and the legal enforceability of debts.Details of the Judgment:Dishonored Cheques Issue: The petitioner took loans and issued two cheques to repay them, but both cheques were dishonored, leading to complaint cases against the petitioner for a total of Rs.4,50,000. The respondent later agreed to a compromise settlement, reducing the claim to Rs.2,50,000, of which Rs.1,50,000 was paid. The petitioner argued that the remaining Rs.1,00,000 was not covered under the Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) as it was part of the compromise settlement and not related to the dishonored cheques.Legal Enforceability of Debts Issue: The petitioner contended that the respondent's claim of Rs.1,00,000 was not covered by the cheques issued, and the settlement amount did not correspond to the earlier claims under the N.I. Act. The petitioner argued that the claim was not recoverable under any provision of the N.I. Act, as it was part of the compromise settlement and not a dishonored cheque.Judgment Summary: The High Court dismissed the revision application, affirming the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court held that the claim of the balance amount on settlement was legally enforceable as the full cheque amount was due and payable by the petitioner towards an enforceable debt and liability on the date of presentation. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Court emphasized that for an offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity, and any part payments made after the debt was incurred do not negate the enforceability of the debt. The Court concluded that the present proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was maintainable, and the petitioner's contentions were not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the revisional application was dismissed, and the order and judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge were affirmed, directing compliance with the law and disposal of all connected applications.Conclusion: The judgment upholds the legal enforceability of debts related to dishonored cheques and emphasizes the applicability of the N.I. Act in such cases, even after compromise settlements, based on the principles outlined in relevant legal precedents.