Your defence should be that no debt was due and payable when case was filed 

it was a security cheque ,account t had not been declared NPA 

only  2 EMI were due and payable 

1. ??

2. No. 

3. On dishonouring of cheque, non payment etc are incidents of criminality. 

4. NPA declaration is not prerequisite condition for depositing cheque. Under agreement bank is protected to recover full amount at any stage. 

As such there is no misuse. Courts are there to watch. Your understanding of law and 138 is not correct. 

The bank has rights to recover the defaulted loan by the easiest and fastest method available before it. 

Even though there is a provision to make the loan account NPA for default in repayment for continuous three months, banks are not prevented from filing cheque bounce case.

The act on part of bank is legal and is correct and proper as per prevailing law.

Now you are talking about filing PIL .

A PIL cannot be filed against individuals, but only against the Central Government, municipal governments, or State Government. It also cannot be filed for matters related to: Landlord-tenant, Services, Pension and Gratuity, and Complaints against central and state government departments and local bodies.

SO YOU MAY CONSULT AN EXPERIENCED LAWYER IN LOCAL AND PROCEED AS SUGGESTED

What you think is not important as as long as the law of the land does not support it.

Till this very moment the security cheque is still considered as valid cheque for the purpose of initiating a proceeding under section 138 of NI Act on its dishonour unless you prove that on the relevant date of dsihonour there was no valid debt existing in your name. 

1. Pledged Security vs. Blank Cheques:

   • In a secured loan, the property is the primary security, not the blank cheques. Cheques used coercively can be challenged legally.

2. Blank Cheques in Agreement:

   • Loan agreements rarely classify blank cheques as security. If not explicitly stated, their use can be contested as misuse.

3. No Criminality in Secured Loans:

   • Section 138 of the NI Act is intended to address fraud, not recover dues when sufficient collateral exists (e.g., your pledged home).

4. Depositing Entire Loan Amount Cheque:

   • Depositing cheques for the entire loan amount when only two EMIs are overdue is disproportionate and may indicate misuse of legal process.

Action Steps:

1. 
   File for Quashing: Challenge the Section 138 case in court, arguing misuse since the loan is secured.
2. 
   Highlight SARFAESI Option: Argue that banks have alternative remedies (e.g., selling pledged property) and Section 138 should not apply in secured loans.
3. 
   PIL Consideration: If this misuse is systemic, file a PIL to restrict banks from using Section 138 for secured loans.

For detailed, personalized advice, consider a phone consultancy.

Hope you find the information helpful. You are free to contact me for further discussion.If you could spare two minutes of your time to write a review, It would be really grateful and very happy to read it.

Thank you.

Shubham Goyal

The law can only be invoked against you when on date do bouncing of cheque there is some existing liability against you which is unpaid and not honoured 

you can file a case in consumer court against the bank for unfair trade practices.

There is nothing like that

The lender can pursue both civil as well as criminal remedies 

And 138 is per se not purely criminal. It's quasi criminal. It's actually a civil dispute having a criminal overtone 

You need to check the loan agreement as to what was agreed therein 

When any EMI is outstanding and not paid by the borrower before the due date the lender is given the right to recall the entire loan and require the borrower to pay the full amount which is what the bank seems to have done by encashing the security cheque by entering therein the full outstanding amount 

This cannot be called abuse of the process of the law 

It is merely trying to recover the dues by following the due process of law 

Even if the security cheques are not mentioned in the loan agreement,  it doesn't matter.

The fact that you gave security cheques to the bank is sufficient reason that the cheque were given by you not by exercise of any force or pressure. That was a part of the loan transaction 

It does not also matter if the cheques were given in 2015 so long as they were undated and have not become stale. 

138 is always invoked to recover a legally enforceable debt. Now though the cheques were merely for security,  the moment you defaulted in the EMI payment, the loan became a legally enforceable debt and the cheque ceased to be security cheque 

You won't achieve anything by filing any PIL. It will be dismissed. A private dispute between a lender and borrower cannot be given color of having some public law element 

1. If you mortgage your house for a bank loan, it becomes the primary security. Post-dated cheques are taken by some banks only to ensure timely repayment of the loan in EMIs. No bank can take 'blank cheques' for that purpose.

2. The house is the 'security', and NOT the post-dated cheques.

3. The bank has a legal right to proceed against a defaulting borrower under Sec-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if a cheques issued by the borrower is returned unpaid for insufficient funds in the account. It is entirely within the bank's discretion to dispose off the security.

4. If there are only two instalments overdue and if the account has not been classified as an NPA, the bank cannot recall the entire loan amount outstanding.