Security Cheque Case in Bangladesh 2026: Case Law, Defences and the Tk 5 Lakh Forum Rule

Security cheque case Bangladesh: the law in 2026

A security cheque case Bangladesh courts will try starts from a premise many drawers find surprising: the law does not ask why the cheque was written. Since the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2000 removed the words "for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability" from section 138, the Appellate Division has held that a post-dated, undated or blank cheque handed over "as security" is still a cheque for the purposes of the offence. If it is presented, dishonoured, demanded and left unpaid, the drawer can be prosecuted.

That does not make every security cheque a conviction waiting to happen. The drawer keeps real defences: no liability at the date of presentation, payment, an amount filled in beyond the authority given, a cheque obtained by force or fraud, and the rebuttable presumption of consideration in section 118. This guide is about that contest. It sets out the case law, the defences, the 2026 changes to forum and mediation, the bank-loan controversy now before the Appellate Division, the civil alternatives, and practical rules for issuers and holders. The notice, trial, appeal and quashing stages each have their own TRW guide, linked below rather than repeated.

Summary: A cheque given as security can found a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The Appellate Division held in Mohammad Alauddin v The State (2017) that the section draws no distinction between a post-dated security cheque and any other cheque, and that whether a cheque was given as "security", "advance" or "post-dated" is a disputed fact for trial. The drawer can still rebut the section 118 presumption of consideration, prove that nothing was due when the cheque was presented, or show that the cheque was completed without authority or obtained by fraud. Since April 2026, cheques above Tk 5 lakh are tried by a Joint Sessions Judge and smaller cheques by a Magistrate.

Key point: "If blank cheque is issued towards liability or as security, when the liability is proved, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid criminal liability." The Appellate Division in Mohammad Alauddin v The State, 24 October 2017. The word "security" is a description of purpose, not a defence. What matters is whether a liability existed when the cheque was presented and whether the cheque was completed within the drawer's authority.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What a security cheque is, and why the label matters less than people think

In Bangladeshi commercial practice a "security cheque" is any cheque handed over not for immediate encashment but to protect the holder on default. Lenders take post-dated instalment cheques, landlords take a cheque against rent, suppliers take an undated cheque against goods on credit, and some employers take a signed blank cheque from staff handling cash.

The difficulty is that the instrument itself carries none of that understanding. A cheque is an unconditional order on the drawer's bank. Once it is presented, the bank looks only at the face of the cheque and the balance in the account. If the balance is short, the cheque is returned unpaid, and the statutory sequence in section 138 begins.[1] Whether that sequence ends in a prosecution, and whether that prosecution succeeds, turns on the law discussed below.

The forms a security cheque takes

• Post-dated cheques for future instalments, usually under a loan, lease or hire-purchase agreement.
• Undated cheques signed with the amount and payee filled in, leaving the holder to insert the date on default.
• Blank cheques signed with no amount, no date and sometimes no payee, intended to be completed later.
• Performance cheques given to guarantee delivery, completion of works or return of an advance.

Each form raises different questions of authority and timing, but a security cheque case Bangladesh courts hear will focus on what was owed at presentation, not on the label used at signing.

The 2000 amendment: why debt is no longer an express ingredient

Section 138 was inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in 1994. As originally enacted, it applied to a cheque drawn "for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability", with an Explanation that this meant a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2000, Act No XVII of 2000, omitted both those words and the Explanation, and also omitted section 139.[1]

The section as it now stands applies to "any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person" that is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or because it exceeds an arranged amount. The punishment is imprisonment of up to one year, a fine of up to three times the cheque amount, or both.[1]

The Appellate Division reads the omission literally

In Mohammad Alauddin v The State, decided on 24 October 2017, a four-judge bench of the Appellate Division heard a batch of appeals and petitions on a single question: whether a commercial bank may prosecute under section 138 on a post-dated cheque taken from a borrower despite also holding collateral security. The court answered yes.[5]

The court held that the legislature "deleted those words from the enactment purposely", so that a court "is not authorized to examine" whether a cheque was issued to discharge a debt. It emphasised the opening words "where any cheque", and expressly declined to follow the Indian line of authority that an advance cheque for an order never fulfilled falls outside section 138, "in view of the amendment of law".[5]

Majed Hossain: no distinction for post-dated security cheques

The Appellate Division in Alauddin adopted its earlier statement in Majed Hossain v The State, 17 BLC (AD) 177, that section 138(1) "has not made any qualification of the cheque so returned unpaid either post-dated given as security for repayment of the loan availed by a loanee… or any other cheque issued by the drawer for encashment currently". The court added that ignorance of the consequences of a dishonoured cheque is no plea.[5]

The practical consequence is stark. Where a loan has been disbursed and instalments have fallen due, the court said, dishonour of the cheques given for those instalments "would fall under section 138". For lenders, landlords and suppliers, that is the foundation of every security cheque case Bangladesh practice now sees.

Security cheque case Bangladesh law: the Appellate Division and High Court Division authorities

The authorities do not all point in one direction. Read together, they establish a firm rule on the label and a more nuanced position on the facts behind it.

Mohammad Alauddin v The State (Appellate Division, 2017)

Beyond the main holding, Alauddin deals directly with blank cheques. The court accepted that the amount and date are material parts of a cheque, that alteration without the drawer's consent invalidates it, and that inserting a larger amount than the actual liability "is an ingredient of fraud". But it held that the question of fraudulent insertion is "a question of fact" that can only be decided "by recording and considering evidence by the trial Court". Once issuance and signature are genuine, "the court shall proceed".[5]

The court concluded that "the disputed question of fact as to the issuance of the cheque as 'security' or 'advance' or 'post dated' can only be decided upon recording evidence", and dismissed all the appeals and petitions.[5]

Shafiqul Islam v Bangladesh (High Court Division, 2012)

Drawers challenged the 2000 amendment as unconstitutional in a batch of writ petitions. In a judgment of 3 December 2012, reported at 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 1, the High Court Division refused to strike it down, but only because section 138 must be read with the rest of the Act. The court directed every trial court to give the accused "adequate opportunity of meaningful defence" under sections 4, 6, 8, 9, 43, 58 and 118.[6]

Two parts of that judgment matter for security cheques. First, the court said that the complaint "should contain the circumstances of obtaining such cheque and reasons for issuing such cheque", although omission is not fatal. Second, it treated a cheque without consideration under section 43, or a cheque lost or obtained by duress under section 58, as outside the mischief of section 138.[6]

SM Emdadul Hossain (Bulbul) v Jinnur Hossain (Appellate Division)

The judgment in Shafiqul Islam records the Additional Attorney General's reliance on SM Emdadul Hossain (Bulbul) v Jinnur Hossain, 15 BLC (AD) 146. There, as quoted, the Appellate Division said that a cheque has a "presumptive value" as to debt or liability, that the liability in that case was "secured by the cheque given… as security and or a performance guarantee", and that "one can incur the liability to pay against the cheque for any reason which is not necessarily limited to 'debt'".[6]

Md Arif-Uz-Zaman v The State (Appellate Division)

In this 2011 decision the Appellate Division held that a drawer cannot obstruct or circumvent section 138 simply by filing a civil suit about the cheque, "because such a device shall totally make the section itself nugatory". It also confirmed that if a payee "gets hold of a dishonoured cheque by fraudulent means or forgery, the drawer of the cheque shall have the liberty to take such defence during the trial".[7]

Md Nurul Hakim v The State (High Court Division, 2023)

The High Court Division shows where the line falls. The accused said he had given three blank cheques as jamanat (security) in a lease arrangement, that seven signed cheques had been taken from his business premises by force, and that he had lodged a general diary entry and a complaint to RAB to recover them. A cheque for Tk 1.8 crore was then presented. By the time the matter reached the High Court Division, defence witnesses and documents, including social media messages, were on the record.[8]

On 11 June 2023 the court quashed the proceeding, finding it "evidenced that the cheque was not filled up by the accused-petitioner and there was no consideration". It also directed cognizance courts to receive an affidavit with every section 138 complaint stating that the drawer filled up all spaces of the cheque.[8] The decision is a reminder that a blank-cheque defence can succeed, but it turned on evidence already recorded, and the Appellate Division's view in Alauddin that such questions belong at trial remains the controlling statement of principle.

Consideration and the section 118 presumption

In India, section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption that a cheque was received for the discharge of a debt or liability, and most Indian security cheque case law turns on it. Bangladesh is different. Section 139 was omitted by Act No XVII of 2000, and the debt words in section 138 went with it.[1] Practitioners who cite Indian authorities on the "section 139 presumption" in a Bangladeshi court are relying on a provision that no longer exists here.

What section 118 presumes

The presumption that does operate is in section 118. Until the contrary is proved, every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been made or drawn for consideration; every instrument bearing a date is presumed to have been made on that date; and the holder is presumed to be a holder in due course, unless the instrument was obtained by an offence, fraud or unlawful consideration, in which case the burden shifts to the holder.[2]

Rebutting the presumption

Section 43 provides that an instrument made or drawn without consideration, or for a consideration which fails, "creates no obligation of payment between the parties to the transaction".[2] The High Court Division in Shafiqul Islam treated consideration as "a vital question to be looked into for trial and conviction", and in Nurul Hakim applied the principle that the burden under section 118 is ambulatory: once the drawer produces acceptable evidence that the cheque was not supported by consideration, the burden moves back to the complainant.[6] [8]

Reconciling the two lines

The Appellate Division's position in Alauddin is that a court cannot ask whether the cheque was drawn to discharge a debt. The High Court Division's position is that section 118 and section 43 still apply. The two fit together if the distinction is between purpose and substance. That the cheque was given for security rather than payment is irrelevant. That nothing was ever owed, or that the secured obligation was fully performed before presentation, is a matter of consideration the drawer may prove. A security cheque case Bangladesh drawers defend successfully is almost always built on the second point, not the first.

Partial consideration

Section 44 adds that where the consideration for a cheque consisted of money and was originally absent in part or has subsequently failed in part, the sum a holder in immediate relation with the drawer is entitled to receive is proportionally reduced.[2] A security cheque for Tk 10 lakh given against a facility of which Tk 7 lakh has been repaid invites exactly that argument.

Blank and undated cheques: authority to complete

The Act recognises that a person may sign and deliver an incomplete instrument. Section 20, which deals with inchoate stamped instruments, gives the recipient "prima facie authority" to complete the paper, but requires it to be filled up "within a reasonable time and strictly in accordance with the authority given", and provides that no person other than a holder in due course may receive more than "the amount intended" by the signer.[2]

Section 87 provides that a material alteration renders an instrument void against a party who did not consent, unless it carried out the common intention of the original parties.[2] Section 118(b) presumes that a dated instrument was made on its date.[2]

Taken with Alauddin, the working rules are these. A holder who completes a security cheque with the amount actually due, when it falls due, is acting within the authority the drawer gave. A holder who inserts a larger figure, or a date chosen to revive a stale claim, is exposed to a defence of fraud and material alteration, but the drawer must prove it at trial.[5]

Post-dated cheques and the six-month window

The Appellate Division in Alauddin treated a post-dated cheque as a bill of exchange until its date, becoming a cheque only on that date, so that the six-month presentation period in proviso (a) to section 138 runs from the date written on it.[5] A holder of an undated security cheque who inserts a date years after the underlying default should expect the drawer to argue that the date was chosen to manufacture a live cheque out of a stale one.

Defences in a security cheque case Bangladesh drawers can actually run

A drawer facing a security cheque complaint has a narrower set of arguments than is commonly assumed, but those that exist are substantial. They fall into three groups: no liability, no valid instrument, and procedural failure.

No liability at the date of presentation

• The secured obligation never arose. The loan was not disbursed, the goods were not delivered, or the contingency the cheque secured did not occur.
• The obligation was discharged. The loan was repaid, the lease ended without arrears, or the works were completed, and the cheque should have been returned.
• Partial discharge. Part payments reduce what can be claimed under section 44.[2]

No valid instrument

• Completion beyond authority. The amount or date was filled in contrary to the authority given, contrary to sections 20 and 87.[2]
• Cheque obtained by force, fraud or theft. Section 58 denies title to a person who obtains an instrument by an offence or fraud, and the High Court Division treats such cheques as outside section 138.[6]
• Complainant not the payee or holder in due course. Only the payee or the holder in due course may complain under section 141(a).[1]

Procedural failure

Every security cheque prosecution must still satisfy the proviso to section 138: presentation within six months or the cheque's validity, a written demand within thirty days of the bank's information of dishonour, service in a mode permitted by section 138(1A), and the drawer's failure to pay within thirty days of receipt. The complaint must then be made within one month under section 141(b).[1] Our guide to the cheque dishonour legal notice explains those steps and the defects that defeat complaints.

Arguments that do not work

Three arguments routinely fail. "It was only a security cheque" fails because the Appellate Division has said the section makes no such distinction. "I have filed a civil suit about it" fails under Arif-Uz-Zaman. "The lender also holds a mortgage" failed in Alauddin itself.[5] [7]

Where the defence is heard

Because the Appellate Division treats these as disputed facts, the trial court is the primary forum. A quashing application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure succeeds only exceptionally, usually where the defence is established by undisputed documents or, as in Nurul Hakim, by evidence already on the record.[8] Our guide to section 561A quashment covers that route in detail.

Comparing security cheque scenarios

The table below maps the situations that most often produce a security cheque case Bangladesh courts must decide. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Bank loans and security cheques: the unresolved battle

The sharpest controversy in this area concerns banks and non-bank financial institutions that take post-dated or blank cheques at sanction and then pursue both an Artha Rin suit and a section 138 prosecution when the borrower defaults.

The 2022 High Court Division verdict and its stay

In November 2022, a High Court Division bench of Justice Md Ashraful Kamal allowed an appeal by a borrower whom BRAC Bank had prosecuted over a dishonoured cheque of Tk 2.95 lakh given against a Tk 4 lakh loan. The court said that banks and financial institutions could no longer file cheque dishonour cases to recover defaulted loans, that recovery belonged in the Artha Rin Adalat, that cheques taken as loan security were "security cheques" rather than negotiable instruments, and that taking blank cheques against a loan was illegal.[11]

The Appellate Division later stayed that ruling on appeal, and the question has not been finally resolved.[12] The 2017 decision in Alauddin, which upheld bank prosecutions on post-dated loan cheques, therefore remains the operative Appellate Division authority.[5]

2025 and 2026: dual proceedings allowed for now

On 19 March 2025 another High Court Division bench declared it illegal for financial institutions to pursue defaulted loans under both laws. On 26 October 2025 the Appellate Division granted leave against that verdict and stayed it. When a further bench suspended proceedings in eleven loan-related cheque cases on 28 September 2026, Bangladesh Bank challenged three of those orders, and the Appellate Division's chamber judge, Justice Md Rezaul Haque, stayed them; the Attorney General disclosed the order on 12 October 2026.[13] For now, banks may run both proceedings side by side.

The scale of the problem

Supreme Court data reported in January 2026 showed 324,804 cheque dishonour cases pending as at 30 November 2025, involving about Tk 450,000 crore, of which about 176,000 cases were filed by banks and NBFIs. The High Court Division stayed 19,406 bank and NBFI cheque cases between January and November 2025. A Bangladesh Bank spokesperson said that no law bars banks from taking cheques or prosecuting on dishonour.[12]

For borrowers, the message is that a pending Artha Rin suit is not, on current authority, a bar to prosecution on the security cheque. For banks, the message is that the issue is live in the Appellate Division and the courts are scrutinising duplication. Our guides to Artha Rin Adalat proceedings and loan security documentation cover the civil side.

The 2026 changes: forum by cheque amount and mandatory mediation

Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2026

The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2026, Act No 65 of 2026, dated 10 April 2026 and in force immediately, substituted clause (c) of section 141. Where the face value of the cheque exceeds Tk 5 lakh, no court inferior to a Metropolitan Joint Sessions Judge or Joint Sessions Judge may try the offence. Every other section 138 offence is triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class. The Act repealed and saved action taken under the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance 2026, Ordinance No 34 of 2026.[3]

The threshold turns on the face value of the cheque. For a blank security cheque, that is the amount the holder writes in. A holder who inflates the figure risks not only a fraud defence but also moving the case into a higher court. A drawer who believes the figure exceeds what was owed should raise the point early, because it goes both to the merits and to the forum.

The amendment did not change the elements of the offence, the penalty, the presumption in section 118 or the fifty per cent deposit for appeals in section 138A.[1] [3] Our guide to cheque case appeals explains how the forum change affects the appellate route.

Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Act 2026

The Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Act 2026, Act No 45 of 2026, added a schedule of disputes subject to pre-case mediation under new section 21B. Item 7 lists complaints relating to cheque dishonour under section 138 for cheques of a value not exceeding three lakh taka.[4] Section 21B, section 21C and the schedule take effect from the dates and in the areas the government notifies in the official gazette.[4]

Small security cheques given by tenants, employees and small traders are often below that figure. Where the scheme is in force in the district, the holder may first have to go to the legal aid office. For security cheque disputes, where the real argument is usually about how much is owed, mediation is often the better forum anyway. See our guides to legal aid in Bangladesh and mediation in Bangladesh.

Courts and offices that handle security cheque disputes

A single security cheque can touch several forums. The cards below summarise where each part of the dispute is decided.

Civil remedies alongside or instead of a security cheque case Bangladesh holders bring

The criminal route is not the only one, and for a security cheque it is not always the best. Section 138(2) provides that any fine realised may be paid to the holder up to the face value of the cheque, and section 138(3) preserves the holder's right "to establish his claim through civil court" for any unrealised amount.[1]

For the holder

• Money suit on the cheque or the underlying contract. A holder can sue on the instrument or on the debt it secured. Our guide to filing a civil suit in Bangladesh covers the process.
• Summary procedure under Order XXXVII. The Code of Civil Procedure provides a summary procedure for suits on negotiable instruments in the High Court Division and the District Court. In Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd v Bengal Techno Leather Ltd (25 February 2021) the Appellate Division held that Order XXXVII does not itself confer jurisdiction, and that such a suit must be filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it, which ordinarily means the District Court.[9]
• Artha Rin suit. Banks and financial institutions recover loans in the Artha Rin Adalat, and on current Appellate Division orders may do so alongside a cheque prosecution.[13]

For the issuer

• Return of the cheque. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 allows a person entitled to possession of specific moveable property to recover it, and section 11 allows specific delivery where the holder holds it as agent or trustee or money would not be adequate relief.[10]
• Cancellation. Section 39 allows a person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who reasonably fears serious injury if it is left outstanding, to sue to have it adjudged void and delivered up for cancellation.[10]
• Injunction. A perpetual injunction under section 54 may restrain the breach of an obligation, including a contractual promise not to present a security cheque.[10]

A civil suit by the issuer does not stop a prosecution once the offence is complete.[7] Its value in a security cheque case Bangladesh issuers face lies in acting before presentation, or in building a record the trial court will later see.

Practical rules for issuers of security cheques

The safest security cheque is the one never given. Where a counterparty insists, the issuer's aim is to limit what the cheque can be used for and to keep evidence that will stand up years later.

Before handing it over

• Offer an alternative. A bank guarantee, a mortgage, a personal guarantee or a deposit carries no criminal exposure.
• Never sign a blank cheque. Fill in the payee, the amount and, where possible, the date. Nurul Hakim shows how hard a blank-cheque defence is to prove, even when it is true.[8]
• Put the purpose in writing. A short receipt or clause stating the cheque number, amount, the obligation secured, the event on which it may be presented and the obligation to return it on discharge.
• Keep a register. Record every cheque number, date and recipient, and keep photocopies of both sides.

After the obligation ends

• Demand the return of every security cheque in writing as soon as the loan, lease or contract ends, and keep proof of delivery.
• If a cheque is not returned, consider a stop-payment instruction to the bank, but take advice first. A dishonour for that reason may still lead to a complaint, and the drawer must then prove the discharge.
• If cheques are taken by force or lost, record a general diary entry promptly, as the accused did in Nurul Hakim.[8]

When a demand notice arrives

Do not ignore it. The thirty-day window for payment is the last point at which the drawer can prevent the offence from being complete.[1] If the amount is disputed, a prompt written reply setting out the security arrangement and what has been paid creates a contemporaneous record. For companies, every person in charge of and responsible for the business may be proceeded against under section 140, subject to the statutory defences of lack of knowledge and due diligence.[1]

Practical rules for holders of security cheques

For a lender, landlord or supplier, a security cheque is a valuable lever, but it can backfire if presented carelessly. The steps below set out how TRW prepares a holder's case.

Swipe or scroll →

Present for what is due, not for what is written

Where the drawer has paid part of the secured obligation, presenting the full face value invites a section 44 defence and, for a blank cheque, an allegation of fraudulent completion.[2] [5] Where possible, take a fresh cheque for the reduced amount or present only once the figure matches the ledger.

Plead the circumstances

The High Court Division in Shafiqul Islam said the complaint should state how the cheque was obtained and why it was issued.[6] Being candid that a cheque was given as security, and showing exactly what was owed when it was presented, is stronger than presenting it as a payment cheque and being contradicted in cross-examination.

Persuasive authority from India

In Sripati Singh v State of Jharkhand (28 October 2021) the Supreme Court of India held there is no "hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented".[14] That is persuasive here, but Indian reasoning built on section 139 or the "legally enforceable debt" Explanation does not transfer.

Strategy in a security cheque case Bangladesh parties face in 2026

For drawers, the question is rarely whether the cheque was "only security". It is whether the evidence shows that nothing, or less than the face value, was owed when the cheque was presented, or that the cheque was completed or obtained improperly. That case is built from documents created long before the complaint: the agreement, the receipts, the repayment record and the written demand for return.

For holders, the question is whether the security cheque is the right tool. A prosecution puts pressure on a drawer, and after conviction an appeal needs a deposit of half the cheque amount.[1] But an inflated or stale cheque risks acquittal and a claim for cancellation, and a mediated settlement or a suit on the contract is often faster.

The bank-loan question will be decided by the Appellate Division, and the Tk 5 lakh threshold and the Tk 3 lakh mediation scheme are already reshaping where cases are heard. For an overview of the offence as a whole, read our guide to cheque dishonour in Bangladesh, and for advice on a specific security cheque dispute, contact TRW's banking and finance litigation team.

Frequently asked questions

Can a cheque given as security be the basis of a section 138 case in Bangladesh?

Yes. The Appellate Division held in Mohammad Alauddin v The State (2017) that section 138 draws no distinction between a post-dated cheque given as security and any other cheque, because the 2000 amendment removed the requirement that the cheque be drawn to discharge a debt.[5]

Is "it was only a security cheque" a defence?

Not by itself. The label is irrelevant. What can defeat the case is proof that nothing, or less than the face value, was owed when the cheque was presented, or that it was completed beyond authority or obtained by fraud or force.[5] [6]

Does Bangladesh have a section 139 presumption like India?

No. Section 139 was omitted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2000. The relevant presumption is section 118, which presumes consideration and the date of a dated instrument until the contrary is proved.[1] [2]

What if I signed a blank cheque and the holder wrote in a larger amount?

Inserting a larger amount than the actual liability is an ingredient of fraud, but the Appellate Division treats it as a question of fact to be proved at trial. Keep every document showing what was actually owed.[5]

Can a security cheque case be quashed by the High Court Division?

Only exceptionally. Whether a cheque was security is a disputed fact for trial. In Md Nurul Hakim v The State (2023) a proceeding was quashed, but on evidence already recorded showing the cheque was not filled by the accused and lacked consideration.[5] [8]

Which court hears a security cheque case after the 2026 amendment?

A Metropolitan Joint Sessions Judge or Joint Sessions Judge if the cheque's face value exceeds Tk 5 lakh, and a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class otherwise, under Act No 65 of 2026.[3]

Can a bank file both an Artha Rin suit and a cheque case for the same loan?

For now, yes. The Appellate Division has stayed High Court Division rulings of 2022 and 2025 that barred dual proceedings, and in October 2026 its chamber judge stayed further interim orders suspending cheque cases.[12] [13]

Does filing a civil suit stop the cheque prosecution?

No. The Appellate Division held in Md Arif-Uz-Zaman v The State that a civil suit by the drawer cannot obstruct or circumvent section 138, although fraud or forgery may be raised as a defence at trial.[7]

Must small security cheque disputes go to mediation first?

Cheque complaints up to Tk 3 lakh are listed for pre-case mediation under the Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Act 2026, in areas where the government has notified the scheme by gazette.[4]

How do I get my security cheque back after repaying the loan?

Demand it in writing and keep proof. If it is withheld, the Specific Relief Act 1877 allows a suit for recovery of specific moveable property and, where the instrument is void or voidable, for its cancellation and delivery up.[10]