My father had taken a loan from a financer and had issued post-dated cheques towards its payment. Due to paucity of sufficient balance in the bank account, the cheque was dishonoured. The financer issued a notice to my father claiming the amount of the cheque but my father expired in an accident and as such the notice was returned with the death report of my father. Now the financer has filed a complaint against me under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as I am the legal representative of my father. Please guide me whether in such circumstances can I be held legally liable? What remedy is available to avoid unnecessary harassment?

My father had taken a loan from a financer and had issued post-dated cheques towards its payment. Due to paucity of sufficient balance in the bank account, the cheque was dishonoured. The financer issued a notice to my father claiming the amount of the cheque but my father expired in an accident and as such the notice was returned with the death report of my father. Now the financer has filed a complaint against me under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as I am the legal representative of my father. Please guide me whether in such circumstances can I be held legally liable? What remedy is available to avoid unnecessary harassment?

It is well settled that criminal liability cannot be fastened to the heirs and the legal representatives of a person, who is said to have been guilty of the offence in question. Moreover, it is specifically provided in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that proceedings under the complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the said Act cannot be filed against legal representatives of the person who had is sued the cheque. The complaint filed by the financer against you is nothing but abuse of the process of court. You may approach the High Court for quashing of the said complaint by filling a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by referring to a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Savita H. Sorle and others Vs. Rajesh Damidar Sarode and another reported as 2006(3) R.C.R. (Crl) 216.

Book Appointment