By: Advocate Akanksha Roy | Cheque Bounce & NI Act Specialist | Rohini Court, Delhi
Cheque Bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are among the most commonly contested matters in Indian courts. However, despite their frequency, a large number of complaints fail because of small yet crucial procedural lapses—especially in the statutory demand notice issued before filing the complaint.
A very important and impactful Supreme Court judgment On September 19, 2025
Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul (2025 INSC 1133)
upheld quashing of a Section 138 complaint because the amount demanded in the statutory demand notice did not exactly match the cheque amount has now clarified a point that will affect thousands of cheque bounce cases across India.
Rule laid down: The notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 NI Act must demand the very cheque amount—no more, no less. Even a “typographical” mismatch can make the notice invalid, collapsing the entire 138 case.
Court’s key line (essence): If the amount in the notice differs from the cheque amount—even by mistake—the notice is bad in law, and proceedings under Section 138 cannot continue.
If the cheque amount mentioned in the demand notice is different from the actual cheque amount, the notice is invalid.
And when the notice is invalid, the entire 138 NI Act complaint collapses.
This judgment changes how complainants must draft notices and provides a powerful defence tool to accused persons.
Section 138 NI Act is a penal provision, meaning it creates criminal liability.
Before filing the complaint, the law requires:
1. Cheque must be presented within validity period.
2. If it bounces, the payee must send a written legal notice within 30 days.
3. The notice must demand the exact cheque amount.
4. The drawer gets 15 days to pay after receiving the notice.
If any of the above steps are done incorrectly →
the complaint becomes legally defective.
Thus, a simple mistake in drafting the notice can destroy the entire case.
The accused had issued a cheque of ₹1,00,00,000 (One Crore).
When the cheque bounced, the complainant sent legal notices.
But in both notices, the complainant demanded ₹2,00,00,000 (Two Crores).
The accused argued that since the notice demanded double the amount, the notice was invalid.
The Delhi High Court agreed and quashed the complaint.
The complainant appealed before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the quashing.
The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice N.V. Anjaria held:
The law uses the words “the said amount” in Section 138(b).
This “said amount” means the cheque amount only.
Notice must specifically and precisely demand only that cheque amount.
If the notice demands any other amount, whether higher or lower, it becomes illegal.
Even a typographical error cannot be excused.
The Court stated:
“A notice demanding an amount different from the cheque amount is invalid in the eyes of law. Even if the cheque details are correct, the notice fails if the amount is wrong.”
This means —
There is no benefit of doubt, no flexible interpretation, no saving of notice.
The complainant argued:
The error occurred due to copy-paste mistake.
It was only a clerical oversight.
The Supreme Court rejected this defence, stating:
“Strict compliance is mandatory. Even typographical mistakes are fatal.”
This shows how meticulous and technical Section 138 litigation is.
One mistaken number can end the case.
Requirement Must It Match Exactly? Court's Position
Cheque Amount in Notice Yes, exactly same Mandatory (No exceptions)
Mention of interest / costs Allowed only after correct
cheque amount Permitted if cheque amount is clearly specified first
Typographical or clerical errors Not excused Fatal to validity of notice
FAQs
Q1. Can I demand interest and legal fees in the same notice?
Yes—but first demand the exact cheque amount. Mention interest/legal fees separately.
Q2. My notice has a small typo in the amount. Is it okay?
No. The Supreme Court says even typographical errors can invalidate the notice.
Q3. I put the correct cheque number & bank, but a different amount. Valid?
No. The amount must precisely match the cheque amount.
Q4. Can the complaint survive if the notice is invalid?
No. If the notice is invalid, the 138 complaint fails.
Q5. Can I send a fresh valid notice?
Often yes, if limitation permits (compute from dishonour memo date). Act quickly.
If you are issuing a legal notice:
Always mention only the cheque amount in the demand portion.
Additional amounts (interest, penalty, fees) may be mentioned separately and not mixed with cheque amount.
Do not use copy-paste notice formats.
Have your notice drafted or vetted by a Cheque Bounce Specialist Advocate.
Failure to do so can lead to:
Complaint being dismissed,
Accused being discharged, and
Valuable time and legal expense wasted.
Practical Impact for Accused / Defense
If you have received a cheque bounce notice and:
The amount demanded in notice ≠ Cheque amount
Then you may be entitled to:
Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Discharge Application before Magistrate
Avoidance of criminal liability
This judgment provides strong and clear defence leverage.
Advocate Akanksha Roy, Delhi
In my experience, many cases fail not because of facts but because of procedural errors.
A well-drafted legal notice is not a formality—it is the foundation of the entire prosecution.
This judgment is a reminder that:
Law rewards precision and preparation.
Whether you are filing or defending a cheque bounce case, strategy matters.
Every word matters.
Every number matters.
Step Requirement Legal Importance
1 Cheque must be issued for a legal debt Establishes liability
2 Cheque is presented to the bank Triggering event
3 Cheque is dishonoured Cause of action arises
4 Payee sends a demand notice within 30 days Mandatory statutory requirement
5 The notice must demand payment of the same
cheque amount Core ingredient of the offence
6 Drawer fails to pay within 15 days Offence is complete
The Court stated:
The term “said amount” in the law refers specifically to the cheque amount.
Interest, legal charges, notice fees may be added, but only after separately and clearly mentioning the cheque amount first.
Illustration for Clarity
Cheque Amount Amount Demanded in Notice Case Status
₹50,000 ₹80,000 (combined demand) Notice Invalid → Complaint Dismissed
₹50,000 ₹50,000 + interest mentioned separately Notice Valid → Complaint Maintainable
This judgment protects both:
Genuine Payees, by guiding them to draft notices correctly
Accused persons, from exaggerated, inflated, or misleading claims
It also sends a message that:
Cheque bounce cases are not civil negotiations — they are criminal proceedings that require accuracy and adherence to procedural law.
Mistake Example Result
Adding expected interest
into the main amount Cheque ₹1,00,000, Notice demands ₹1,20,000
Case fails
Mis-typing cheque amount Cheque ₹2,50,000, Notice states ₹25,000
Notice invalid
Rounding off figures Cheque ₹1,49,500, Notice demands ₹1,50,000
Not maintainable
Therefore, professional drafting is essential.
Being a practicing advocate handling Cheque Bounce/Section 138 NI Act matters across:
Rohini Courts, Tis Hazari, Dwarka, Karkardooma, Saket Courts, Delhi High Court
…I ensure that every legal notice and complaint is drafted strategically, with zero clerical or legal errors, so your case stands strong in court.
I assist with:
Drafting legally correct Demand Notices
Filing Section 138 Complaint
Defence in Cheque Bounce Cases
Negotiation & Settlement Strategy
Execution of Court Decrees & Recovery Orders
If your cheque has bounced, or if you have received a legal notice – take timely action.
Delay can weaken your case.
Call / WhatsApp: [8789006633]
Office: Rohini Court Complex, Delhi
Advocate Akanksha Roy – Cheque Bounce Specialist Lawyer
Best Cheque Bounce Lawyer Rohini Court Section 138 NI Act Legal Notice Cheque Dishonour Complaint Lawyer Delhi Top NI Act Advocate in Delhi Criminal Lawyer for Cheque Bounce Cases Dishonoured Cheque Legal Remedy