A Common Financial Dispute, a Long Legal Journey
On a Wednesday last month, 37-year-old Sonali Chaudhary stood outside a courtroom at the Dwarka courts complex, waiting for her case to be called. The matter concerned a cheque issued to her that had been dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Chaudhary, who works at a multinational company in Gurgaon, had loaned a friend ₹4 lakh. When the repayment cheque bounced, she had little option but to approach the court. What she did not expect was the number of hearings and the time it would take to recover her money.
Like thousands of others in Delhi, Chaudhary is now caught in a slow legal process for a dispute that is essentially about repayment, not punishment.
Why Cheque-Bounce Cases Overwhelm Delhi Courts
Cases related to cheque dishonour are filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While the law was meant to promote trust in financial transactions, it has also resulted in a flood of litigation.
According to court data, over one-third of pending cases in Delhi involve bounced cheques. Each case follows a fixed legal procedure that includes issuing notices, recording evidence, and repeated court appearances. Even when both parties are willing to settle, formal closure often takes months.
As a result, courts spend significant time on routine matters, leaving less room to handle serious criminal cases.
Lengthy Procedures, Limited Outcomes
In most cheque-bounce cases, the final outcome is payment rather than imprisonment. Yet, the legal route to reach that point is time-consuming and expensive for both parties.
Lawyers point out that many disputes could be resolved faster through early mediation or structured settlements. However, the lack of effective pre-litigation mechanisms means parties often enter the court system by default.
For working professionals like Chaudhary, each court visit also means lost work hours, travel expenses, and mental stress.
What Went Wrong With the System?
The core problem lies in the criminalisation of what is largely a financial dispute. While the law acts as a deterrent, its large-scale use has placed an unsustainable burden on magistrate courts.
Despite several Supreme Court observations recommending decriminalisation or faster settlement methods, ground-level implementation has been slow.
The Way Forward
Legal experts suggest several reforms to reduce the burden of cheque-bounce cases:
- Mandatory mediation before formal court proceedings
- Digital hearings for routine stages of the case
- Compounding of offences at an early stage
- Greater use of online payment recovery mechanisms
Such measures could help courts focus on serious offences while ensuring faster relief for complainants.
A Case for Speedier Justice
For people like Sonali Chaudhary, the issue is not just about money but about time and certainty. A system designed to protect financial trust should not itself become a source of prolonged hardship.
Unless procedural reforms are implemented soon, cheque-bounce cases will continue to clog Delhi’s courts, turning simple repayment disputes into months or even years of legal struggle.