One of the most common hurdles in cheque bounce litigation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is securing the presence of the accused. Very often, courts issue summons to the accused at his residential address, but the person deliberately refuses to receive them. Can he escape liability this way? What remedies are available to the complainant? Let’s break it down.
Refusal to Accept Notice: Deemed Service
The law is clear: if summons or statutory notice is sent to the correct address and the accused deliberately avoids receiving it, the service is treated as valid.
- Section 27 of the General Clauses Act provides that once a notice is properly addressed, prepaid and posted, service is deemed complete.
- The Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555 ruled that refusal of service amounts to valid service.
👉 In short, the accused cannot frustrate the process of law by simply not opening the door to the postman.
Court’s Powers: From Summons to Warrants
Once the court is satisfied that summons were deliberately refused, it can escalate the matter:
- Bailable Warrant – issued to compel the appearance of the accused.
- Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) – if he continues to ignore, the court can issue an NBW.
- Ex Parte Proceedings – in extreme cases, if the accused never turns up despite repeated opportunities, the court may proceed ex parte and decide based on complainant’s evidence.
Substituted Service
If service at residence fails repeatedly, the complainant can request substituted service:
- By affixation of summons at the door of the accused’s residence, or
- By publication in a local newspaper.
This ensures that the proceedings cannot be stalled indefinitely.
Serving Summons at Workplace
A smart practical step is to also request service at the accused’s place of employment or business address.
- Under Section 62 of CrPC, summons can be served personally, and courts have allowed service at workplaces when residential service is being avoided.
- At the office, refusal is harder, and even if avoided, postal endorsements such as “refused” further strengthen the complainant’s case.
This parallel approach—residence plus workplace—shows the complainant’s diligence and prevents the accused from taking advantage of procedural loopholes.
Parallel Civil Remedy
It is worth noting that proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are criminal in nature. If the cheque amount is significant, the complainant may also explore a civil summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC for direct recovery. Pursuing both remedies in parallel can improve the chances of actual recovery.
Key Judicial Precedents
- C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) – Refusal of notice is valid service.
- K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) – Offence under Section 138 explained; refusal covered.
- State of M.P. v. Hiralal (1996) – Accused cannot defeat the process of law by avoiding service.
Conclusion
Deliberate refusal to accept summons in cheque bounce cases does not shield the accused from liability. Courts treat such conduct as deemed service and have ample powers—from issuing warrants to ordering substituted service—to ensure proceedings move forward. For complainants, the key is to act proactively:
- Preserve postal records,
- Request warrants when necessary, and
- Seek service at the accused’s workplace if residence service is being evaded.
Ultimately, the law ensures that intentional avoidance will only delay justice, not defeat it.