Negotiable Instruments Act

Ans: No FIR can be filed for the offence of cheque bounce.

"Chapter XVII containing Sections 138 to 142 was introduced in the Act by Act 66 of

1988 with the object of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and

giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. These

provisions were intended to discourage people from not honouring their

commitments by way of payment through cheques. The court should lean in favour of

an interpretation which serves the object of the statute. A post-dated cheque will lose

its credibility and acceptability if its payment can be stopped routinely. The purpose of a post-dated cheque is to provide some accommodation to the drawer of the

cheque. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that the drawer of the cheque should

not be allowed to abuse the accommodation given to him by a creditor by way of

acceptance of a post-dated cheque.

Ref: Goa Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza, (2003) 3 SCC 232

In view of Section 139, it has to be presumed that

a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption can be

rebutted by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to

rebut the presumption. This presumption coupled with the object of Chapter XVII of

the Act leads to the conclusion that by countermanding payment of a post-dated

cheque, a party should not be allowed to get away from the penal provision of Section

138. A contrary view would render S. 138 a dead letter and will provide a handle to

persons trying to avoid payment under legal obligations undertaken by them through

their own acts which in other words can be said to be taking advantage of one's own

wrong. ..."

Ref: Goa Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza, (2003) 3 SCC 232

The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists

a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable

presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of

a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no

doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent

complainant. Therefore, where the cheque as well as the signature

has been accepted by the accused, the presumption under Section 139

would operate. 

Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the

existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability.

Ref: T. Vasanthakumar vs Vijayakumari on 28 April, 2015 - AIR 2015 SC (CRIMINAL) 1182