Three recent Himachal Pradesh High Court decisions explain when a cheque complaint is premature, why describing a cheque as “security” or “blank” does not by itself rebut the statutory presumption, and what an insurer must prove before avoiding liability on the ground of a fake driving licence.
Today’s Must-Read
1. A cheque complaint filed before the cause of action arises is premature
Basant v. Virender Singh, Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2025, 2026:HHC:37620; final judgment.
The case concerned the statutory waiting period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court held that a complaint instituted before the statutory cause of action had arisen was not maintainable. It allowed the revision, set aside the concurrent conviction and dismissed the complaint as premature.
Headnote: Negotiable Instruments Act—Section 138—Premature complaint—A complaint filed before expiry of the statutory period available to the drawer after receipt of the demand notice is not maintainable because the cause of action has not yet arisen; a conviction recorded in such a complaint cannot be sustained.
2. Calling a cheque “security” is not a defence by itself
M/s Himalayan Plastics Ltd. v. Anoop Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2014, 2026:HHC:37770; judgment on conviction.
The accused relied on the defence that the disputed cheque had been issued blank or merely as security. The Court held that those assertions, without a probable defence supported by the evidence, did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 138. The matter remains listed for sentencing on 23 September 2026.
Headnote: Negotiable Instruments Act—Sections 138 and 139—Security cheque—Blank cheque—The statutory presumption is not displaced merely by labelling the instrument a security or blank cheque; the accused must establish a probable defence on the evidence. An acquittal founded on an unrebutted assertion is liable to be reversed.
3. A fake licence allegation does not automatically free the insurer
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vinod Kumar and Others, FAO(MV) No. 432 of 2015, 2026:HHC:37776; final judgment.
The insurer sought to avoid liability by alleging that the driver’s licence was fake. The Court held that the insurer had to establish a conscious breach of the policy condition by the insured; the allegation concerning the licence, without proof that the insured knowingly permitted an unlicensed or improperly licensed person to drive, was insufficient.
The Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and affirmed the compensation award.
Headnote: Motor Vehicles Act—Insurance liability—Fake driving licence—An insurer cannot avoid liability merely by proving or alleging that the licence was fake; it must establish a conscious and wilful breach of the policy condition by the insured. In the absence of such proof, the compensation award remains enforceable against the insurer.
Bottom line
Basant enforces the statutory sequence that must precede a cheque prosecution; Himalayan Plastics shows that a “security cheque” label cannot replace evidence capable of rebutting Section 139; and Oriental Insurance reiterates that policy breach must be proved against the insured, not presumed from the condition of the driver’s licence.
Browse the permanent Himachal Law Digest archive.
Prepared by the LawUmbrella Legal Research Desk. This digest is for legal information and research. Readers should consult the official judgments and obtain case-specific advice where required.
Share: #HimachalPradeshHighCourt #HimachalLawJournal #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #Section138 #SecurityCheque #MotorVehiclesAct #InsuranceLiability #CriminalLaw
LawUmbrella 