AI Overview...

Friendly Loan of Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 1.80 lakh - The complainant alleges that the accused took friendly loans of Rs. 5 lakh via cheque on 30.11.2013 and Rs. 1.80 lakh on 13.05.2014 for land redemption and purchase purposes. However, inconsistencies in the complainant's version and lack of signed documentation (e.g., Exhibit C6 not signed by the accused) weaken the claim. The cheque issued was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and legal notices went unanswered Lachman Dass Rajinder Kumar (M/s) VS Gurdeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana.
Friendly Loan of Rs. 15.25 lakh - The complainant states that in December 2017, the accused approached for a friendly loan, which was disbursed in installments based on an agreement dated 06.12.2017. The evidence supports that the loan was given on a friendly basis, although the exact terms and repayment remain unfulfilled Devendra Kumar Singh alias Devender Kumar Singh, S/o M. P. Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand.
Rs. 30 lakh Friendly Loan - Multiple sources confirm that the complainant provided Rs. 30 lakh as a friendly loan through cheques, expecting repayment. Despite requests, the accused and his wife did not return the amount, and the accused is alleged to be a habitual cheater who has taken loans from multiple persons without repayment JASPAL SINGH ANAND Vs GNCT OF DELHI - Delhi, Jaspal Singh Anand vs GNCT of Delhi - Delhi, 2022_DHC_3766>IND_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_DHC_3766, 2022_DHC_3766_DHC_3766.
Rs. 7 lakh Loan - The complainant claims to have lent Rs. 7 lakh to the respondent in installments between 2014 and 2016, evidenced by cheques. The respondent denies mortgaging land or owing the amount, asserting that only Rs. 1.36 lakh was borrowed, and had mortgaged land in 2013. The cheque dishonoured due to insufficient funds Ram Singh VS Hukum Singh - Madhya Pradesh.
Small Friendly Loan of Rs. 11,000 - An earlier case involved a Rs. 11,000 loan given in 2011, with the complainant presenting a cheque to discharge the liability. The respondent admits to a mortgage agreement but disputes the loan amount, indicating a smaller sum borrowed B. B. Sharma, S/o. Late R. R. Sharma VS Luxman Bharti, S/o. Brijlal Bharti - Chhattisgarh.
Summary and Insights:
The complainant consistently claims that the accused took multiple friendly loans ranging from small amounts (Rs. 11,000) to large sums (Rs. 30 lakh, Rs. 15.25 lakh, Rs. 5 lakh).
Evidence suggests that most loans were given on friendly terms, often supported by cheques and agreements, but repayment has generally been defaulted on.
There are discrepancies in the complainant’s accounts, and some documents (like signed agreements) are missing or contested.
Several cases highlight the accused’s alleged habitual borrowing without repayment, leading to accusations of cheating and default.

Analysis and Conclusion:The sources collectively depict a pattern where the complainant extended friendly loans to the accused, often supported by cheques and informal agreements. Despite assurances, the accused failed to repay these loans, with some cases involving dishonoured cheques and allegations of habitual borrowing and cheating. The inconsistencies and lack of signed documentation in some cases weaken the legal standing but do not negate the overall pattern of friendly loan transactions that were not repaid Lachman Dass Rajinder Kumar (M/s) VS Gurdeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana, Devendra Kumar Singh alias Devender Kumar Singh, S/o M. P. Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Shiv Prasad Choubey son of Late Rajbali Choubey VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, JASPAL SINGH ANAND Vs GNCT OF DELHI - Delhi, Jaspal Singh Anand vs GNCT of Delhi - Delhi, 2022_DHC_3766>IND_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_DHC_3766, 2022_DHC_3766_DHC_3766, Ram Singh VS Hukum Singh - Madhya Pradesh, B. B. Sharma, S/o. Late R. R. Sharma VS Luxman Bharti, S/o. Brijlal Bharti - Chhattisgarh.

Friendly Loan & Dishonoured Cheque: Section 138 Guide

Friendly Loan and Dishonoured Cheque: A Comprehensive Legal Guide

In the world of informal lending, friendly loans between acquaintances are common in India. But what happens when the borrower issues a cheque that bounces? If you're the complainant who gave a friendly loan and now face non-repayment, understanding your rights under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) is crucial. This guide breaks down the legal framework, key court findings, and practical tips to strengthen your case.

Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

Understanding the Legal Framework: Section 138 NI Act

Section 138 addresses the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or other reasons, treating it as a criminal offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment or fine, or both. For complainants in friendly loan scenarios, success depends on proving:- A legally enforceable debt or liability.- Issuance of a cheque for that debt.- Dishonour upon presentation.- Service of a valid legal notice demanding payment within 15 days.

The question We are for Complainant and Complainant Gave Friendly Loan highlights a typical scenario where the lender (complainant) must substantiate the informal transaction amid defences like security cheque claims. Courts presume the cheque's validity under Section 139, but this can be rebutted with evidence. Gurmit Singh VS Inder Pal Singh - Punjab and Haryana (2011)

Proving the Existence of a Friendly Loan

Establishing a friendly loan is pivotal, as courts scrutinize the relationship and transaction details.

Key Evidence Requirements

Friendly Relations: Prove prior acquaintance. In one case, the complainant claimed Rs.3 lakhs as a friendly loan, supported by the dishonoured cheque, but needed more to corroborate ties. Gurmit Singh VS Inder Pal Singh - Punjab and Haryana (2011)
Documentation Gaps: Lack of records weakens claims. The court in Amit Mahajan VS Romesh Kumar Goel - Punjab and Haryana (2018) doubted the loan due to no documentation and the complainant's inability to recall accused's details: the complainant could not provide any documentation or specific details about the loan.

From additional precedents:- A complainant advanced Rs.30 lakhs via cheques from Karur Vysya Bank as a friendly loan, but the accused and wife failed to repay despite requests. IND_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_DHC_37662022_DHC_3766_DHC_3766 2022_DHC_3766_DHC_003766>JASPAL SINGH ANAND vs GNCT OF DELHI - Delhi- Another involved Rs.53,000 friendly loan with an agreement dated 13.12.2007, yet repayment defaulted alongside other items. Saluka Deogam @ Vishal Deogam, S/o. Arjun Deogam VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 750 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 750

Courts emphasize financial capacity: In Yunus Masih VS State Of Punjab And Ors. - Punjab and Haryana (2018), failure to show lending ability led to acquittal, rebutting the Section 139 presumption.

The Dishonour Process and Legal Notice

Steps After Dishonour

Bank Memo: Essential proof of insufficient funds. Cheques dishonoured twice bolster claims, as in Ashok Kumar Soni VS Rajinder Bahadur @ Jinder - Punjab and Haryana (2022_DHC_3766).
Legal Notice: Must demand payment within 30 days of dishonour info. Properly served in Vinod Kumar VS Davinder Singh - Punjab and Haryana (2018)Ravinder Paul VS Ashwani Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2020), preserving complaint rights.

In a Rs.6 lakhs case, RTGS and cash transfers were alleged, with fresh friendly loan requests in December 2019. Satinderjeet Singh VS Sameer Sondhi - 2022_DHC_3766 Supreme(Del) 1622 - 2022_DHC_3766 0 Supreme(Del) 1622

Common Defences Raised by Accused

Accused often challenge the loan's legitimacy:- Security Cheque Claim: The cheque was a blank security cheque and was misused. Amarjit Singh Kundu VS Baljeet Singh - Punjab and Haryana (2022_DHC_3766)- Complainant Credibility: Ignorance of accused's background questions friendship, as in Amit Mahajan VS Romesh Kumar Goel - Punjab and Haryana (2018).

Other cases show patterns:- Rs.50,000 friendly loan to a neighbour for house construction, cheque stopped. R. S. Prasad, S/o. Late G. S. Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 759 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 759- Accused approached for gold pledge and loan on 20.07.2013 amid friendly ties. Neelam Saini VS Manoj Kumar Rai - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1503 - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1503

Insights from Notable Cases

Large-Scale Friendly Loans

Rs.30 Lakhs Case: Complainant gave Rs.30 lakhs through cheques; accused, accused of habitual cheating, didn't repay. JASPAL SINGH ANAND Vs GNCT OF DELHI - Delhi Jaspal Singh Anand vs GNCT of Delhi - Delhi
Rs.15.25 Lakhs: Disbursed in instalments per 06.12.2017 agreement, terms unfulfilled. Devendra Kumar Singh alias Devender Kumar Singh, S/o M. P. Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand

Smaller Transactions

Rs.5 lakhs + Rs.1.80 lakhs for land purposes, but unsigned docs (Exhibit C6) hurt credibility. Cheque bounced on insufficient funds. Lachman Dass Rajinder Kumar (M/s) VS Gurdeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana
Rs.7 lakhs in instalments (2014-2016); accused admits partial Rs.1.36 lakhs but denies rest. Ram Singh VS Hukum Singh - Madhya Pradesh
Rs.11,000 in 2011 with mortgage dispute. B. B. Sharma, S/o. Late R. R. Sharma VS Luxman Bharti, S/o. Brijlal Bharti - Chhattisgarh

Patterns Observed

Across cases like Harish Kumar VS Mukesh Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2019), absence of independent witnesses or docs recurs. Accused frequently allege misuse, but proven friendly loans with dishonour tilt towards complainants. Rainee Singh VS State - Dishonour Of Cheque notes: petitioners obtained friendly loan from respondent No.2 complainant and issued the cheques towards repayment.

In Keshar Sao VS State of Bihar - 2015 Supreme(Pat) 566 - 2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 566, post-expiry request led to new friendly loan in instalments for Rs.1,10,000 purchase.

Court Findings and Rebuttals

Courts acquit if presumption rebutted:- No friendly ties or capacity: Acquittal in Yunus Masih VS State Of Punjab And Ors. - Punjab and Haryana (2018).- Inconsistencies: Weaken claims, e.g., mismatched dates or unsigned papers. Lachman Dass Rajinder Kumar (M/s) VS Gurdeep Singh - Punjab and Haryana

Yet, strong evidence succeeds: Dishonour memos, notices, and relations upheld liability in supported cases.

Practical Recommendations for Complainants

To avoid pitfalls:- Document Everything: Record amount, date, repayment terms via promissory note or agreement. Saluka Deogam @ Vishal Deogam, S/o. Arjun Deogam VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 750 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 750- Secure Witnesses: Independent corroboration strengthens credibility. Harish Kumar VS Mukesh Kumar - Punjab and Haryana (2019)- Prompt Action: Present cheque within validity (3 months), send notice via registered post.- Build Financial Proof: Bank statements showing transfer capacity.- Avoid Verbal Only: Even friendly loans need paper trail.

For ongoing cases, track patterns like habitual defaults. IND_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_Delhi_BAIL_APPLN-1987_2022_DHC_37662022_DHC_3766_DHC_3766

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Friendly loan disputes under Section 138 often hinge on evidence quality. While presumptions favour complainants, defences exploit gaps in documentation and relations. Cases like Amit Mahajan VS Romesh Kumar Goel - Punjab and Haryana (2018)Gurmit Singh VS Inder Pal Singh - Punjab and Haryana (2011) show meticulous preparation yields results, but lapses lead to acquittals.

Key Takeaways:- Prove loan via docs and ties.- Follow dishonour protocol strictly.- Anticipate security/misuse claims.- Loans from Rs.11,000 to Rs.30 lakhs follow similar patterns—repayment defaults trigger NI Act action.

Lenders, formalize even friendly deals to safeguard rights. For tailored advice, seek professional counsel.

#FriendlyLoan #Section138 #ChequeBounce

Shiv Prasad Choubey son of Late Rajbali Choubey VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 982

The witnesses have clearly stated that the transaction was in the nature of friendly loan which was not paid in spite of demand. The appellate court has also recorded a clear finding that the transaction was in the nature of friendly loan. ... He also submits that it has been specifically recorded that upon perusal of the evidences adduced by the witnesses examined by the complainant, it transpired that t....

JASPAL SINGH ANAND Vs GNCT OF DELHI - 2022 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 6147

The complainant gave Rs. 30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as friendly loan through cheques drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Janakpuri but the applicant and his wife did not return back the said amount, despite various requests made by the complainant. ... The applicant and his wife Raminder Kaur @ Simmi approached the complainant for taking a friendly loan#HL_END....

Jaspal Singh Anand vs GNCT of Delhi

The complainant gave Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as friendly loan through cheques drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Janakpuri but the applicant and his wife did not return back the said amount, despite various requests made by the complainant. ... The applicant and his wife Raminder Kaur @ Simmi approached the complainant for taking a friendly loan....

JASPAL SINGH ANAND vs GNCT OF DELHI

The complainant gave Rs. 30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as friendly loan through cheques drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Janakpuri but the applicant and his wife did not return back the said amount, despite various requests made by the The applicant and his wife Raminder Kaur @ Simmi approached the complainant for taking a friendly loan with assurance to retu....

Ram Singh VS Hukum Singh - 2021 Supreme(MP) 23

The case of the complainant before the trial Court is that he gave a friendly loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent on different dates and in the discharge of the liability he issued the cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Ex. ... By virtue of the relation between them, the respondent sought financial support from the complainant and according to the applicant/complainant, he gave#HL_....

B. B. Sharma, S/o. Late R. R. Sharma VS Luxman Bharti, S/o. Brijlal Bharti - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 47

In para-18, the complainant categorically admits that he has given loan to 25-30 persons but he has denied in para-19 that said loan was advanced for any money lending business and stated that he has given the money on a friendly terms. ... Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant and the respondent/accused were familiar to each other and on 15.04.2011 the complainant h....

JASPAL SINGH ANAND vs GNCT OF DELHI

The complainant gave Rs. 30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as friendly loan through cheques drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Janakpuri but the applicant and his wife did not return back the said amount, despite various requests made by the The applicant and his wife Raminder Kaur @ Simmi approached the complainant for taking a friendly loan with assurance to retu....

Saluka Deogam @ Vishal Deogam, S/o. Arjun Deogam VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 750

In the meantime, the petitioner being a friend of the complainant approached the complainant and requested to pay him Rs.53,000/- as friendly loan and an agreement in this regard was also made on 13.12.2007. ... It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused neither returned the mobile phone and the golden ring nor the loan amount. ... It was never the case of the prosecutio....

Satinderjeet Singh VS Sameer Sondhi - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1622

It is stated that out of Rs.6,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was given through RTGS and Rs.1,10,000/- was given in cash. c) It is stated that in the month of December, 2019, the petitioner/accused again approached the complainant and requested for another friendly loan for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is stated that the complainant advanced another friendly loan for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

R. S. Prasad, S/o. Late G. S. Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 759

2. Complaint Case No. C/1 2069 of 2010 was filed on 14.07.2010 on the allegation that the cheque bearing no.227841 dated 15.06.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank, Bistupur Branch, Jamshedpur in favour of complainant was returned with the cheque return memo dated 15.06.2010 with remark “stop payment”. The complainant has stated that he gave friendly loan of Rs.50000/- to O.P. No.2, his neighbour, for construction of his old house and for the payment of the said amount O.P. No.2 issued a....

Neelam Saini VS Manoj Kumar Rai - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1503

I have considered the rival contentions of the Ld. counsel for both the parties. In the complaint, it is alleged that accused and complainant were having friendly relations for a long time and the alleged loan was a friendly loan which was advanced by the complainant to the accused. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the cross-examination of the complainant has stated during her cross-examination that she has given the loan on 20.07.2013 and the gold ornaments were pledged at ....

Keshar Sao VS State of Bihar - 2015 Supreme(Pat) 566

On expiry of six months, the complainant met the petitioners with a request to refund back the said amount but the petitioners refused to repay the loan. They requested the complainant to give them a friendly loan for the said amount in the year 2006. Because of the acquaintance from before, the complainant advanced the loan to the petitioners in three instalments on the understanding that the loan will be repaid within six months. They were in need of Rs. 1,10,000/- for purc....

Rainee Singh VS State

The said cheques were dishonoured and the respondent complainant sent notice of demand to the correct address of the petitioners and the petitioners had received the said notices but failed to make the payment of amount of cheques in question. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 complainant urged that the petitioners obtained friendly loan from respondent No.2 complainant and issued the cheques towards repayment of said loan.