3 weeks ago
Delhi court sets aside summon order in cheque bounce case
A man named Pranshu Aggarwal was told by a smaller court that he had to stand trial in court.
The case was about a trust and some checks that were not paid.
When a check is not paid, it is sometimes called a bounced check.
The checks were worth about 5.75 crore rupees, which is a lot of money.
Aggarwal said he should not be blamed because he did not sign the checks.
A bigger court in Delhi agreed with him.
The judge explained that a trust is not the same as a company under the law.
The rule that makes company leaders responsible for bounced checks does not apply to trusts.
The court also said there was no proof Aggarwal was a trustee or held any job in the trust.
So the order to put him on trial was canceled, but the case will still continue against the other people accused.
A Delhi court set aside a magistrate's order summoning Pranshu Aggarwal to stand trial in a Rs 5.75 crore cheque bounce case against a trust.
The court found Aggarwal was neither the drawer nor a signatory of the two cheques that were returned unpaid.
Citing the Supreme Court, the court held that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply to trusts because a trust is not a juristic person.
The case originated from a criminal complaint by an LLP enterprise against a trust and 10 individuals over two unpaid cheques worth around Rs 5.75 crore.
Proceedings against Aggarwal were dropped, but the trial will continue against the remaining accused persons.
- Who
- Pranshu Aggarwal, who filed a criminal revision plea, heard by Additional Sessions Judge Saurav Pratap Singh Laler.
- What
- A Delhi court set aside a magistrate's order summoning Aggarwal to stand trial in a Rs 5.75 crore cheque bounce case against a trust.
- Where
- New Delhi, India.
- When
- Order dated August 5; reported on August 11.
- Why
- Aggarwal was neither a drawer nor a signatory of the cheques, and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply to trusts as they are not juristic persons.
Key facts
- Case type
- Cheque bounce (criminal complaint)
- Amount involved
- Rs 5.75 crore
- Complainant
- A limited liability partnership (LLP) enterprise
- Accused
- A trust and 10 individuals
- Court
- Delhi court, Additional Sessions Judge Saurav Pratap Singh Laler
- Key provision
- Section 141, Negotiable Instruments Act (vicarious criminal liability)
- Order date
- August 5
- Outcome
- Summon order against Aggarwal set aside; trial continues against remaining accused
Quotes
Delhi court
Judge of the Delhi court
“The revisionist (Aggarwal) is not the drawer of either cheque; he is not the signatory thereto; he is not a trustee; he is not shown, either by the complaint or by any document annexed to it, to be an office bearer, officer, manager or secretary of the trust, or to hold any office in it whatsoever.”
theprint.in










