Home / Practice Areas / Cheque Bounce

Practice Area

Cheque Bounce Lawyer in Thane — Section 138 NI Act

Pursuing or defending cheque dishonour cases with speed and precision — legal notice, complaint, trial, and bail matters handled end-to-end.

Our Services

Cheque Bounce (Section 138) Cases in Thane

When a cheque is dishonoured due to insufficient funds or any other reason, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides a criminal remedy for the payee — with conviction attracting imprisonment up to two years and/or fine up to twice the cheque amount. Advocate Anushree Kulkarni handles both prosecution (complainant's side) and defence across courts in Thane and Mumbai.

Step 1 — Legal Notice

After the cheque bounces and you receive the bank's memo, a formal demand notice must be sent to the drawer within 30 days, giving them 15 days to make payment. This notice is a mandatory procedural requirement — failure to comply correctly extinguishes the right to prosecute under Section 138. We draft and despatch this notice correctly on your behalf.

Step 2 — Filing the Complaint

If the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving notice, a complaint under Section 138 must be filed before the appropriate Magistrate within 30 days of the expiry of the notice period. Timely, correctly filed complaints are critical — we handle the entire filing process.

Trial & Evidence

We represent complainants and accused at all stages of trial — examination in chief, cross-examination, arguments — before Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) courts in Thane.

Defence in Cheque Bounce Cases

If you are accused under Section 138, we build a defence strategy — challenging the legally enforceable debt or liability, the manner of notice, jurisdiction, or limitation — to protect your rights and achieve acquittal, compounding, or minimal penalty.

Anticipatory Bail & Bail Applications

In serious cheque bounce matters (especially high-value or multiple complaints), bail and anticipatory bail applications are filed and argued to ensure the accused is not taken into preventive custody.

Quashing of Complaint / FIR

Where a cheque bounce complaint has been filed despite payment, out-of-court settlement, or other infirmity, we file quashing petitions before the Bombay High Court under Section 482 CrPC to bring proceedings to an end.

Compounding & Settlement

Many Section 138 matters are settled through payment of the cheque amount plus compensation. We facilitate and document compounding arrangements, ensuring court proceedings are withdrawn in full and final settlement.

Cheque Bounce Legal Notice
Section 138 Complaint Filing
Trial Representation (Complainant)
Defence in Sec. 138 Matters
Bail Application
Anticipatory Bail
Quashing Petition (High Court)
Compounding & Settlement
Multiple Cheque Bounce Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

Obtain the bank's cheque return memo immediately. You have 30 days from receiving the memo to send a legal demand notice to the drawer. Contact an advocate as soon as possible — missing the 30-day window for notice means you lose the right to file a Section 138 complaint. Do not delay.
Conviction under Section 138 NI Act can result in imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to twice the cheque amount, or both. Courts can also direct payment of compensation to the complainant. The punishment was strengthened by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Yes. Section 138 offences are "compoundable" — meaning the complainant and accused can settle at any stage, including during trial or appeal. Once the cheque amount and agreed compensation are paid, the complainant files a compounding application and the court typically allows it and acquits the accused. A documented settlement agreement is essential.
Common defences include: (1) absence of a legally enforceable debt — e.g., the cheque was given as security or a gift; (2) procedural defects — improper notice, incorrect address, limitation issues; (3) the cheque was stolen or forged; (4) the complainant has already been paid. The Supreme Court has held that once the complainant establishes the basic facts (dishonour, notice, non-payment), the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of liability.
Call Now WhatsApp