Yes, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provides safeguards against false or politically motivated cases by enforcing strict evidence standards and penalizing misuse of the legal process. These measures help ensure fairness and prevent abuse of the justice system.

Caveat Emptor means "let the buyer beware." It means the buyer is responsible for checking the quality of goods before purchase.

The doctrine of severability means that if part of a law or contract is found invalid, the rest can still remain effective.

The motive behind the Consumer Protection Act is to protect consumers’ rights and ensure fair trade practices.

Cheque bounce does not amount to an offence when:
1. Cheque issued as gift or for charity (no legal debt).
2. Cheque given as security, not for repayment of debt.
3. Cheque dishonoured due to mismatch of signatures or technical reasons not related to funds.
4. Cheque issued without consideration or in a fictitious transaction.
5. Cheque bounced due to bank error or reasons beyond drawer’s control.
6. Discharge of debt already done before dishonour.

Cheque bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a criminal offence.
• It is criminal in nature because it involves dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds or other reasons.
• The accused can face criminal prosecution, including imprisonment and/or fine.
• However, it is also a compoundable offence, meaning the parties can settle and withdraw the case with court approval.

If an accused person has fully compensated the complainant in a cheque bounce case (Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act), but the complainant refuses to settle, the accused has the following legal remedies:

⸻

✅ 1. File a Petition Under Section 482 CrPC (Quashing of Proceedings)

The accused can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to:
• Quash the criminal proceedings, showing that the liability has been discharged,
• Argue that continuation of the case is an abuse of the legal process and against the spirit of justice.

Courts have held that if the complainant has been fully compensated, continuing the trial serves no purpose and may be unjust.

⸻

✅ 2. Seek Compounding of Offence (Section 147 of NI Act)
• Section 138 cases are compoundable under Section 147 of the NI Act.
• If the complainant refuses to cooperate, the court may still consider recorded settlement evidence (like payment proof, affidavits, etc.) to permit compounding in the interest of justice.

⸻

✅ 3. Use Settlement as a Defence During Trial

If quashing is not granted, the accused can:
• Present evidence of full payment and lack of remaining liability,
• Argue for acquittal or minimal penalty during the trial or at sentencing.

⸻

⚖️ Relevant Case Laws:
• M/s. Meters and Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta (2017) – SC held that courts can close proceedings in cheque cases even if the complainant opposes, if compensation is paid.
• R. Vijayan v. Baby (2012) – Compensation and intention of the parties are relevant factors.

No, an offence of cheque bounce under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be made out if the cheque was given as a gift or in charity, because:

✅ Key Reason:

Section 138 applies only when the cheque is issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

⚖️ Legal Principle:
• If there’s no legal obligation to pay (as in the case of a gift or donation), the basic condition for Section 138 is not satisfied.

A gift or charity cheque does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act, as there is no legally enforceable liability behind such payment.

Yes, in certain cases. A cheque issued by a guarantor as security may fall under Section 138 of the NI Act if it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

???? Key Points:
• If the cheque is only a security and not for repayment, Section 138 may not apply.
• But if the cheque is presented after default by the principal debtor and used to recover dues, it can be treated as a discharge of liability, making Section 138 applicable.

⚖️ Case Reference:
• Indus Airways v. Magnum Aviation (2014): Held that cheques given only as security do not attract Section 138 unless they are for a legally enforceable debt.

⸻

In short: A guarantor’s cheque can attract Section 138, but only if it’s used for discharging a legally enforceable liability, not merely as security.

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was enacted to define, regulate, and ensure the credibility of certain financial instruments used in commercial transactions.

???? Key Objectives:
1. To legalize and standardize negotiable instruments like:
• Promissory notes
• Bills of exchange
• Cheques
2. To ensure free and smooth circulation of money and credit in the form of these instruments as substitutes for cash.
3. To provide legal recognition and certainty to the transfer and enforcement of negotiable instruments.
4. To protect the rights of holders in due course, ensuring they can claim the amount mentioned in the instrument without unnecessary complications.
5. To penalize dishonour of cheques (via Section 138 and onward), thereby improving trust and accountability in commercial transactions.
6. To facilitate efficient dispute resolution in cases of non-payment, default, or fraud related to negotiable instruments.