
Legal News › Cheque Bounce Explained
The Delhi High Court quashed a case against a man declared an absconder in a cheque bounce complaint. It says courts must check the address first.
Key points
- On 9 October 2026 the Delhi High Court quashed a police case against a man who was declared an absconder in a cheque bounce complaint.
- The court found that summons, warrants and the proclamation had gone to two old addresses where he had not lived for about four years.
- It told trial courts to call for the correct address on affidavit and to check the reports on returned summons and warrants before calling anyone an absconder.
- Failing to appear after a proclamation is a separate offence under BNS s. 209: up to 3 years, or up to 7 years if declared a proclaimed offender.
- If you get no summons for a cheque case, or the address is wrong, tell the court in writing soon.

What did the Delhi High Court decide?
The Delhi High Court gave its judgment on 9 October 2026. The case is Tajinder Mohan Singh v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi).
A man was an accused in a cheque bounce complaint (a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act). The trial court declared him an absconder (a person hiding from the law). Police then registered an FIR against him.
The High Court quashed (cancelled) that FIR. It held he was wrongly declared an absconder.
How did it reach this point?
The complaint listed two addresses in Ludhiana. The summons went by registered post and came back undelivered. The court took it that he was avoiding service.
Bailable warrants (warrants that let a person get bail at once) were sent next. Then non-bailable warrants.
Each came back with a clear report. The man had not lived or worked at either address for about four years.
Even so, a proclamation (a public notice to appear) was ordered for the same addresses. In January 2024 he was declared an absconder, and the FIR followed.
He said he had left those addresses in 2018. He also said the cheque case had ended in a compromise (a settlement).
Also read | Bought Car Insurance From an Online Ad? Ghaziabad Police Bust Fake Insurance Racket: What the Law Says
Why did the High Court cancel the FIR?
The court looked at the trial record. It said the trial court went ahead in haste. It did not check that the papers went to the place where the man ordinarily lives.
The court said the law always speaks of the house where a person ordinarily resides. If summons, warrants or a proclamation go to some other place, they are not validly served. So the person has not committed the offence of ignoring them.
The state said this was a matter for trial. The court did not agree. When the record itself shows the facts, it said, there is no need for a trial.
What must trial courts do now?
The court gave five directions to all criminal courts. In simple words:
First, a heavy case load is no reason to call someone an absconder. There must be good grounds to think the person is avoiding summons on purpose.
Second, at the start of a complaint case, the complainant must give the accused’s correct home address on an affidavit (a sworn written statement). They must also give other addresses where summons can be sent, including by e-mail.
Third, the judge must record reasons in writing, after personally checking the record.
Fourth, if papers come back saying the person does not live there, the court must ask the complainant for solid proof that he does.
Fifth, the judge must personally read the process server’s or police report before saying the person is avoiding service.
Sections involved
What is the law on summons and proclamation?
Under BNSS section 64, a summons should be served personally on the person, if possible. A police officer or court officer usually does it.
BNSS section 84 lets a court publish a proclamation if it believes a person with a warrant is hiding. The person must be told to appear at least 30 days later. It is read out and put up where the person ordinarily lives.
Not appearing after such a proclamation is an offence under BNS section 209 (old IPC section 174A). It carries up to 3 years, or a fine, or both, or community service. For a declared proclaimed offender it is up to 7 years and a fine.
It is cognizable (police can act without a court’s permission) and non-bailable (bail is not a right). It applies only if the proclamation was validly served.
What happens next in such a case?
A person wrongly declared an absconder can ask the trial court to recall the order. They can also ask the High Court to quash the FIR, as here.
This ruling asks courts to check the address at every step.
What happens next
- 1SummonsCourt sends a summons to the accused's address.
- 2WarrantBailable, then non-bailable warrants if summons fail.
- 3ProclamationA public notice to appear, at least 30 days ahead.
- 4Absconder orderCourt records reasons after checking the reports.
- 5FIRBNS s. 209 case, only if the notice was validly served.
- 6ChallengeRecall order or approach the High Court to quash.
What does this mean for you?
If you have moved house, a court notice may go to your old address. You may never know about the case. Warrants and a proclamation can follow.
Keep your address updated with your bank and on your records. If a complaint is filed against you, check its status on the eCourts site.
If you are a complainant, give the correct address with proof. A wrong address can cost you time and money.
If you may be named in a cheque bounce case
- Keep your current address updated with your bank and on your records
- If you move, tell the court in writing in any case you know of
- Check case status on the eCourts site with your name or case number
- If a warrant or proclamation comes, go to court with a lawyer quickly
- Keep proof of your real address, such as Aadhaar or a rent agreement
If this happens to you
- Do not ignore a court notice. Even a wrong-address notice can lead to warrants. Act as soon as you know.
- Show your real address. File a written application with address proof, and ask the court to serve you there.
- If declared an absconder, ask the court to recall the order. Read about anticipatory bail in Delhi.
- If an FIR is filed under section 209, a petition to the High Court can be an option. See Delhi High Court matters.
- For a cheque bounce notice or case, read about cheque bounce cases in Delhi.
- If you are the complainant, give the correct address with proof at the start.
Case at a glance
- Court
- Delhi High Court (single judge)
- Case
- Tajinder Mohan Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 500/2025
- Decided
- 9 October 2026
- What
- FIR for being an absconder in a cheque bounce case quashed; addresses were wrong
- What changes
- Trial courts in Delhi must check the address and record reasons first
Related news
Sources
- Delhi High Court: Tajinder Mohan Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 500/2025, judgment of 9 October 2026 (copy hosted by LiveLaw)
- LiveLaw: Delhi High Court directs trial courts to verify accused's address before declaring them absconders
- India Code: Section 209, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- India Code: Sections 64 and 84 and First Schedule, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
More legal news
This explainer is general legal information based on news reports and the text of the law. It is not legal advice on any particular case, and it does not say that any person has committed an offence; allegations are decided by the courts.

