What the Supreme Court’s Cheque Bounce Ruling Means for You
- Cheque bounce is serious: If your cheque is dishonoured, courts will presume it was issued for a valid debt. The burden is on you (the drawer) to prove otherwise.
- Reply to notices: Ignoring a legal notice after a cheque bounce weakens your defence — courts may treat silence as admission.
- Faster cases coming: From November 1, 2025, summons can be sent by email, WhatsApp, and other digital means to speed up trials.
- Settle early, save costs: If you pay the cheque amount quickly, you can settle the case without penalties. Delaying settlement will cost more.
- Online payments allowed: District courts will set up QR codes and UPI links so accused persons can pay directly at the start of the case.
- Purpose of the law: The aim is not jail time but ensuring payments and keeping cheques a trusted form of transaction.
New Delhi, September 25, 2025 — The Supreme Court has overturned a Bombay High Court acquittal in a long-running cheque bounce case, restoring the conviction of accused Kishore S. Borcar and directing him to pay ₹7.5 lakh in 15 instalments.
The case was filed by complainant Sanjabij Tari, who alleged that Borcar failed to honour a ₹6 lakh cheque. While trial and sessions courts convicted Borcar, the High Court had acquitted him in 2009. The apex court found that once a cheque is admitted to be signed, the law presumes it was issued for a valid debt, and Borcar had failed to prove otherwise.
Beyond this individual case, the bench of Justices Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria used the opportunity to address India’s cheque bounce crisis. Nearly half of all trial court cases in some cities relate to dishonoured cheques, with Delhi alone reporting over 6.5 lakh pending cases.
To tackle the backlog, the Court announced sweeping reforms effective November 1, 2025. These include electronic service of summons (via email or WhatsApp), online payment systems for quick settlements, a standard complaint format, expansion of evening courts, and real-time dashboards to track case progress.
The Court also revised its earlier guidelines on compounding, allowing accused persons to settle cases without penalty if they pay early, with scaled costs for later-stage settlements.
Calling Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act a “civil sheep in a criminal wolf’s clothing,” the Supreme Court stressed that the true purpose of the law is to ensure payments and restore trust in cheques, not to punish.