Defective Notice In A Cheque Bounce Case Vitiates Entire Proceedings Rendering It Suffering From Incurable Illegality: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a defective notice in a cheque bounce case vitiates the entire proceedings rendering it suffering from incurable illegality.
The Court allowed the Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the Petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held, “While Section 138(b) NI Act does not specify the ingredients of a valid notice, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the notice was issued in the name of a different person altogether. The infirmity as such, is not merely formal in nature and impacts the heart of the case. Further still, the memo qua the disputed cheque was issued on 13.06.2019 and legal notice was originally issued on 05.07.2019, however, not to the petitioner(s), as such, the defective notice would vitiates the entire proceedings rendering it suffering from incurable illegality.”
Advocate Bikramjit Singh Baath represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sushma Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
It was alleged that the Petitioner approached the Respondent for a friendly loan to expand his business. The Petitioner kept delaying the repayment of the loan but ultimately, issued a cheque which was returned with the remarks ‘funds insufficient.’
Subsequently, a legal notice was served on the petitioner. However, it was later realised by the Respondent that the notice was erroneously sent in the wrong name. Accordingly, a corrigendum-cum-rejoinder was issued to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner failed to repay the loan amount in the stipulated period, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was instituted.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court referred to the decision in Aparna A. Shah v. M/s Sheth Developers Private Limited (2013), wherein the Supreme Court held, “We also hold that under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder.”
“It is trite law that serving a notice is a sine qua non for instituting a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The intention behind the said requirement is to give him an opportunity to settle the debt before criminal proceedings are initiated against him. As such, it becomes all the more important to ensure that such a notice contains all necessary details pertain to the cause of action, in unmistakeable terms,” the Court reiterated.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the discussion above, both the above mentioned petition(s) are allowed. Accordingly, the complaint…under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as well as summoning order…and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Charanjeet Singh v. Kulwant Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:010518)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Bikramjit Singh Baath
Respondent: Advocates Sushma Sharma and Ramesh Sharma
Click here to read/download the Order