Noor Jahan Bano vs Gajendra Singh Namdev

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the accused, proprietor of M/s Sun Consultancy, had issued a cheque bearing No. 034642 dated 25.05.2024 for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, which was dishonoured with the remarks 'Payment stopped by drawer'. A legal demand notice dated 17.06.2024 was duly served upon the accused, who failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, leading to the filing of the complaint.

The accused, at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., pleaded guilty. It was submitted that the entire cheque amount had already been paid to the complainant on 06.02.2025. However, the complainant refused to compound the offence, demanding additional interest over and above the cheque amount. Following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., the court noted that where a complainant refuses compounding and demands amounts beyond the cheque sum, the Magistrate may suggest the accused plead guilty and exercise powers under Section 255(2) and/or 255(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 278 BNSS, 2023, and/or extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

In view of the accused's voluntary plea of guilt, admission of liability, and payment of the entire cheque amount, the court convicted the accused Gajendra Singh Namdev of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, observing that continuation of trial would serve no meaningful purpose and would only add to the massive backlog of cheque bouncing cases.

Catchwords: dishonour of cheque payment stopped by drawer Section 138 NI Act guilty plea compounding of offence cheque amount paid Sanjabij Tari guidelines speedy justice pendency reduction conviction on guilty plea Probation of Offenders Act