Nitesh Yadav Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court ruled that a discrepancy between the numerical and written amounts on a cheque does not automatically render it invalid and must be examined during trial. In the case of Nitesh Yadav v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., the petitioner challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s decision to discharge the accused, Sonu Rana, in a cheque dishonor complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The cheque in question, issued for ₹4,65,000, contained a mismatch in the written amount, which stated “Four Lac Sixty Five only.” The ASJ had ruled that this discrepancy, coupled with overwritten dates, made the cheque legally ineffective, thereby dismissing the case. However, the High Court found that such technical errors should not be grounds for dismissal at the preliminary stage, as the bank memo explicitly stated that the cheque was dishonored due to “stop payment” instructions, not material alteration.
The High Court further emphasized that legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act favor the payee, requiring the drawer to provide evidence rebutting the liability. The court referenced past Supreme Court judgments reinforcing that a legal notice demanding payment need not be invalidated due to minor errors unless it misrepresents the due amount. As the accused failed to respond to the legal notice or dispute liability, the court reinstated the complaint and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the trial. This ruling clarifies that minor clerical errors in cheque details do not exempt a drawer from legal consequences and that such disputes should be resolved through proper trial proceedings rather than summary dismissals.
