Cheque Dishonour Cannot Be Decided Solely Based On Return Memo Whose Authenticity Is Yet To Be Established: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the question of cheque dishonour cannot be conclusively determined merely based on a return memo. It remarked that such a document, without being duly established through evidence, can't form the sole basis for deciding disputed issues at the stage of quashing, and the matter must instead be examined during trial.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Whether the cheque was returned on account of 'insufficient funds' or freezing of account is a matter of trial… and cannot be decided merely on the basis of one return memo… authenticity of which is yet to be established by cogent evidence.”
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog.
The petitioner contended that the essential ingredient of Section 138 was not satisfied since the cheque was never dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds'. Instead, it was returned with the remark “account freezed.”
In response, the respondent contended that whether cheque was returned on account of insufficient funds or freezing is a question to be decided by the trial Court, based on evidence.
The Court observed that for an offence under Section 138, it is necessary for the complainant to prove that cheque was returned for want of sufficient funds.
Further the Court remarked that the disputed question of fact, whether actual reason for dishonour was insufficient funds or freezing of account, cannot be decided solely on the basis of a return memo.
Thus, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Name: Arvind Verma V/s Dhian Singh
Case No.: Cr.MMO No. 1129 of 20265
Date of Decision: 24.03.2026
For the petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Pawan Sharna, Advocate