Mumbai Court Convicts Surat Businessman In Cheque Bounce Case, Sentences Him To 3 Months Jail

Mumbai Court Convicts Surat Businessman In Cheque Bounce Case, Sentences Him To 3 Months Jail

A Bandra magistrate court has convicted Surat-based businessman Phenil Parekh in a cheque bounce case linked to a failed property transaction, sentencing him to three months in jail and imposing a Rs 6 lakh fine. The court criticised the accused for repeatedly remaining absent during trial proceedings.

Charul Shah JoshiUpdated: Wednesday, May 06, 2026, 11:00 PM IST
article-image
The Bandra Magistrate Court convicted a Surat businessman in a cheque dishonour case linked to a failed property transaction | File Pic (Representative Image)

Mumbai, May 6: The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, has convicted Surat-based businessman Phenil Parekh to three months’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh, even when he failed to appear before the court, observing that a cheque is not a mere piece of paper.

Cheque bounce case linked to property deal

The case against Parekh was filed by Goregaon resident Gita Shah, claiming that Parekh was staying in her property on a rental basis. Later, he offered to purchase the house for a consideration of Rs 36 lakh, and an agreement of sale was executed on May 19, 2018.

However, subsequently, the accused mutually rescinded the contract. A Deed of Compromise dated December 12, 2020, came to be executed between them, whereby Parekh was to pay Shah Rs 10.85 lakh. Parekh had issued cheques for the same.

Cheque returned due to insufficient funds

The complainant claimed that when presented, the cheque of Rs 3 lakh was returned unpaid for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in June 2021. The complainant thereafter asked Parekh to clear the dues, but since he failed to do so, Shah filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court through her lawyer, Nirmit Shah.

The court noted that during the trial, Parekh and his lawyers, Krupa R. Parekh and Dinesh Sharma, remained absent during the proceedings.

Court criticises accused for delaying trial

The court said, “The accused was given more than sufficient opportunity to exercise his right of cross-examination as well as giving explanation to the incriminating substance found in the evidence of the complainant against him, but he failed to exercise both rights by continuously remaining absent. His advocate also remained absent and had not opted to exercise the right of cross-examination or giving statement on behalf of the accused in his absence.”

Also Watch:

Hence, the court observed that, “Main object of the Act is to raise faith in the transactions done by way of negotiable instruments. The accused has kept the trial lingering. Showing leniency will pass a wrong message to society. It will encourage the defrauders to use the negotiable instruments as a protracting tool.”

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/