{"id":200,"date":"2026-06-21T00:31:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T19:01:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ghamdaanlawfirm.com\/blog\/?p=200"},"modified":"2026-06-21T00:52:40","modified_gmt":"2026-06-20T19:22:40","slug":"a-small-mathematical-error-turned-the-cheque-bounce-case-around-court-acquits-accused-couple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ghamdaanlawfirm.com\/blog\/a-small-mathematical-error-turned-the-cheque-bounce-case-around-court-acquits-accused-couple\/","title":{"rendered":"Cheque Bounce Case: Delhi Court Acquits Couple Over Interest Calculation Error"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A minor calculation mistake by the complainant proved to be a major relief for an accused couple in a cheque bounce case<\/a>. A district court in Dwarka, Delhi, acquitted the accused, Rukhsana and Mainuddin, after finding that the complaint was based on an incorrect calculation of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Shiv Kumar<\/strong> held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/a><\/strong> can be initiated only when the cheque amount is equal to or less than the actual legally enforceable debt. In this case, the cheque amount was found to be higher than the actual liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background of the Case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The matter dates back to 2019. The complainant, Renu Devi, was searching for a rented accommodation when she came into contact with Rukhsana and her husband Mainuddin, residents of Raghubir Nagar, through a property dealer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The couple proposed renting out their house in exchange for a security deposit of \u20b93 lakh. On May 6, 2019, both parties entered into a mortgage agreement in which the amount was described as a loan. It was agreed that the accused couple would pay interest of \u20b96,000 per month on the amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Initially, the accused paid interest for two months but subsequently stopped making payments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cheque Amount Exceeded the Actual Liability<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

During the trial, the court directed both parties to calculate the principal and interest in each other’s presence. This exercise exposed inaccuracies in the complainant’s claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the complainant, approximately 68 months had passed between May 2019 and December 2024. At the agreed rate of \u20b96,000 per month, the total interest for 68 months amounted to \u20b94.08 lakh. Adding the principal amount of \u20b93 lakh brought the total liability to \u20b97.08 lakh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the complainant admitted that the accused had already paid two months’ interest, amounting to \u20b912,000. Therefore, the actual outstanding liability was only \u20b96.96 lakh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, the cheque presented before the court was for \u20b97.20 lakh, which exceeded the actual liability by \u20b924,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court observed that the cheque amount was greater than the complainant’s own calculation of the outstanding debt. On this basis, the court concluded that the legal requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not met and acquitted the accused couple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cheque Bounced Due to Account Closure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Amid the ongoing dispute, the accused issued a cheque dated January 30, 2024, for \u20b97.20 lakh towards repayment of the alleged liability. When Renu Devi deposited the cheque, it was dishonoured because the bank account had been closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant filed a cheque bounce case against the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the trial, the accused defended themselves by claiming that they had borrowed only \u20b93 lakh and had provided a blank cheque merely as security. The court ultimately accepted that the cheque amount exceeded the legally recoverable debt and acquitted the accused couple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A minor calculation mistake by the complainant proved to be a major relief for an accused couple in a cheque bounce case. A district court in Dwarka, Delhi, acquitted the accused, Rukhsana and Mainuddin, after finding that the complaint was based on an incorrect calculation of interest. The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Shiv […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":201,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"single-post-left-sidebar","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[34,35,12,43,36,6],"class_list":["post-200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ni-act-1881","tag-cheque-bounce-case","tag-cheque-bounce-punishment","tag-cheque-bounced-due-to-signature-mismatch-legal-remedy","tag-cheque-dishonour-law","tag-section-138-ni-act","tag-section-138-ni-act-signature-mismatch"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t