Bangalore District Court
H.K. Sudheendra Rao vs Tirumala Constructions on 18 October, 2025
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No.3399/2021
KABC020117972021
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No. 3399/2021
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 18th day of October, 2025.
Complainant : Sri H K Sudheendra Rao
S/o late H Krishna Char,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at:No.4071, IV phase layout,
Girinagar, Bangalore 560085.
(By Sri. Girish P J, Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused : 1. M/s. Tirumala Constructions
A partnership firm represented by its
partner Sri Praveen Mohan,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No.3399/2021
2. Sri Praveen Mohan
Partner of M/s Tirumala Constructions
3. Sri Mohan
Partner of M/s Tirumala Constructions
All are R/at:
No.326, 5th main, 10th cross,
4th stage, Vinayaka layout,
Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru 560072.
(By Sri. Chethan Kumar K, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The complainant has filed the present complaint U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant is the absolute owner of the property bearing Site No. 280, carved out of Sy. No.16, 17, 18, 19 of Gerahalli village and Sy. Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore, Vishwabharathi house building Co-operative Society Ltd., in the IV phase of Girinagar, Bangalore 560085 having acquired the same SCCH-2 3 C.C.No.3399/2021 under Sale Deed dated 03.06.1994 executed by Vishwabharathi house building Co-operative Society Ltd., bearing registered document No. 2203/1994-95, stored in Book I, Volume 901, pages 23-24, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bangalore on 06.07.1994. Since there was a grievance regarding identification of the said property, the aforesaid Vishwabharathi house building Co- operative Society Ltd., after conducting re-survery have assigned with new site No.4071 to the said site and thereafter the said Vishwabharathi house building Co- operative Society Ltd., executed a Supplemental Deed dated 17.11.2012 bearing registered document No.8060/2012-13, stored in C D No.BSKD180, registered in office of Sub-
Registrar, Banashankari, Bangalore in favour of complainant.
Further, the complainant was in desirous of developing the property bearing new Site No.4071, carved out of Sy. No.16, 17, 18, 19 of Gerahalli village and Sy. Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore had entered into joint development agreement dated 20.05.2013 with the 1st accused represented by 2nd accused bearing registered document No. 1367/2013-14, stored in Book I, C.D.No.CMPD86 registered in the office of Sub-
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No.3399/2021Registrar, Chamarajapet, wherein under entire flats in ground floor (ie., Flats bearing G-1 & G-2) and entire flats in third floor ( ie., Flats bearing No. T-1 & T-2) along with 50% car parking in the stilt floor and 50% terrace rights which has fallen to the share of complainant herein.
Further, the complainant was in need of money for his family necessities and had offered to sell the said property to the 1st accused represented by 2nd accused for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- under Sale Agreement dated 12.01.2017. Further, as per the conditions of the sale agreement, the sale transaction with regard to the said property should be completed within a period of 2 years and which got expired on 11.01.2019, but the same did not get completed within the stipulated period as the 1 st accused represented by 2nd accused failed to express the readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Further, accused Nos.2 & 3 representing the 1st accused snatched the original documents which were in the possession of the complainant herein and the flats which were allotted to the share of the complainant were given on rent by the accused to the third parties without even obtaining the permission of the complainant herein, for which the complainant has lodged the complaint against the SCCH-2 5 C.C.No.3399/2021 2nd accused. Thereafter, on mutual discussion and understanding between the complainant and accused, a fresh agreement for sale dated 30.07.2019 was executed where under the 1st accused represented by 2nd accused have agreed to purchase property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,65,50,000/-. As per the conditions of the sale agreement, the possession of the property were agreed to be delivered by the complainant to the 1 st accused represented by 2nd accused at the time of execution of sale deed and also the complainant has received an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as advance and the efflux of time mentioned in the said agreement dated 30.07.2019 is 30.01.2020.
Further, 1st accused represented by 2nd accused in order to discharge the remaining liability has issued cheques bearing No. 003264, 003265 and 003266 dated 14.08.2019, 30.10.2019 and 30.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.15,50,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,00,000/- which were drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Rajajinagar branch.
As per the instructions of accused, the complainant has presented the cheque bearing No. 003264 for realization on 14.08.2019 through his banker namely State Bank of India, SBM colony, Bangalore. However, the said cheque got bounced for the reason as "Funds Insufficient" on SCCH-2 6 C.C.No.3399/2021 16.08.2019. The complainant has intimated about the dishonour of cheque to the accused, but the accused have instructed the complainant to represent the cheque for encashment after 2 days. But the same got bounced once again for the reason as "Funds Insufficient" on 19.08.2019.
Further, as per the instructions of accused, the complainant has presented the another cheque bearing No. 003265 dated 30.10.2019 for Rs.25,00,000/- for realization through his banker namely State Bank of India, SBM colony, Bangalore. However, the said cheque got bounced for the reason as "Funds Insufficient". on 31.10.2019.
Further, as per the instructions of accused, the complainant has presented the another cheque bearing No. 003266 dated 30.01.2020 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- for realization through his banker namely State Bank of India, SBM colony, Bangalore. However, the said cheque got bounced for the reason as "Funds Insufficient". on 04.02.2020. Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused on 27.02.2020, which has been delivered to the accused on 28.02.2020. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused have not returned the amount nor sent any reply. Hence, cause of action arose to file the complaint.
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No.3399/20213. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima- facie found that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was registered and the summons was issued to the accused.
4. In response to the summons, the accused persons have appeared through their counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The accused Nos.2 & 3 have denied the accusation leveled against them. Further, the statement of the accused Nos.2 & 3 as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused Nos. 2 & 3 have denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of complainant and submitted that they have defence evidence.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that "Sworn Statement of the complainant has to be treated as examination in chief". In the instant case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6, Ex.P3(a) to Ex.P3(c). P.W.1 was subject to SCCH-2 8 C.C.No.3399/2021 the process of cross-examination from the side of accused. Per contra, the 2nd accused examined himself as D.W.1 and was subject to the process of cross-examination from the side of complainant.
6. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this Court are as hereunder:
1. Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case, the
complainant examined himself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit in SCCH-2 9 C.C.No.3399/2021 support of his oral examination-in-chief. In the affidavit P.W.1 has reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim. Hence, this Court need not to recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In support of his oral testimony, P.W.1 has marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.6, Ex.P3(a) to Ex.P3(c). The accused No.2 is also examined as D.W.1 but not produced any documents.
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents marked at Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:04.02.2020. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:27.02.2020. Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 are the postal track consignments.
11. The learned counsel for complainant has relied on the decision of (2010) 11 SCC 441 between Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan. Per contra the learned counsel for accused has relied on the following decisions :
i) ILR 2008 KAR 4629 between Shiva Murthy Vs. Amruthraj.SCCH-2 10 C.C.No.3399/2021
ii) (2010) 1 Air KAR 304 between Sri Venkatesh Bhat Vs. Sri Rohidas Shenoy.
iii) (2014) 12 SCC 539 between Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd., and others Vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., and another.
iv) 2012 4 KCCR 3593 between T T Naveen Kumar Vs. B Somegowda.
This court has carefully gone through the decisions relied by both the counsels and applied the principles to the case on hand.
12. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the same as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: -
Where 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 from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any SCCH-2 11 C.C.No.3399/2021 debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of Six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (The period of 6 months has been reduced to 3 SCCH-2 12 C.C.No.3399/2021 months, vide R.B.I. notification No.RBI/2011-12/251,DBOD.AMLBC No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4th November 2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: - For the purposes of the section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.SCCH-2 13 C.C.No.3399/2021
139. Presumption in favour of holder:- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
13. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have observed at para 26 as hereunder:
"No doubt that there is a initial
presumption which favours the
complainant".
14. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the proceedings initiated U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of beyond reasonable doubt is subject to the presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Once the requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has SCCH-2 14 C.C.No.3399/2021 to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases.
15. Now this court has to see whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6, Ex.P3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.003266, dated:30.01.2020. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:04.02.2020. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:27.02.2020. Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 are the postal track consignments.
16. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1 coupled with Ex.P.2, it appears to this court that, the complainant has presented the cheque dated 30.01.2020 for encashment and same was got bounced on 04.02.2020. Therefore, it is pellucid that, the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment within stipulated period.
17. Now, the next aspect is whether Ex.P.1 is pertaining to the bank account of accused and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused or not? In the instant case the PW.1 was fully cross SCCH-2 15 C.C.No.3399/2021 examined from the side of accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, the learned counsel for accused suggested that, the cheque in question was forcefully taken by the complainant. Further, the learned counsel for accused suggested that the accused has issued signed blank cheque and also signed blank paper under pressure from the side of police. That apart, the 2 nd accused examined himself as DW.1. In his examination in chief, he has deposed that, the complainant along with his daughters, his son in law, his counsel forcefully entered his office and forcefully obtained signed blank cheques. At this juncture, it is worth to reproduce the deposition of DW.1 here itself for better understanding: "ಒಂದು ದಿನ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರ ಮಕ್ಕಳಾದ ಸುಷ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ಸುಮ, ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರ ಅಳಿಯ, ಅವರ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರು ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಥಳೀಯರು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಗೆ ಬಂದು ನವ್ಮಿುಂದ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಬಲವಂತವಾಗಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಅದು ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಎರಡು ಬ್ಲಾಂಕ್ ಶೀಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ''. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that Ex.P1 is pertaining to the account of 1st accused and Ex.P1(a) is the signature of 3rd accused who is the authorized signatory of 1 st accused partnership firm.
18. Now, the next question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance with law or not? As per Ex.P.3, on 27.02.2020, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused. As SCCH-2 16 C.C.No.3399/2021 per Ex.P.3(a) to Ex.P3(c), the complainant has dispatched the said notice on 27.02.2020 itself. Hence it appears to this court that the complainant has issued the legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of bank endorsement.
19. Now, the next question before this court is whether the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused or not?. In this connection, it is appropriate to take Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 viz. the track consignments, for discussion. On perusal of these documents, it appears to this Court that, the notice has been duly served on the accused on 28.02.2020. That apart, DW.1 has not deposed regarding he has not received the notice. Likewise DW.1 has not disputed the address mentioned in Ex.P3 and also in the cause title of the complaint. That apart, Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 clearly reveals that notice has been delivered on the addressee. Hence, it clearly goes to show that the accused have received the notice. That apart, the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act favours the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
20. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon'ble SCCH-2 17 C.C.No.3399/2021 Apex Court observed that, "under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to establish either the legality or enforceability of the debt or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour".
21. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption. Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not to enter into the witness box. However, the accused can establish his probable defence by creating a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
22. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of law that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption then the burden shifts back to the complainant. At this juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "the standard of proof to rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of probabilities".
SCCH-2 18 C.C.No.3399/202123. It is also settled position of law that, "it is immaterial that, the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque otherwise valid, within the provisions of Sec.138 would be attracted".
24. Now, the question before this court is whether the accused have rebutted the presumption or not?. In the instant case there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the property. Likewise there is no dispute with regard to developing the property pertaining to complainant. Further there is no dispute with regard to sharing of four flats to the complainant and four flats to the accused persons.
25. Further, there is no dispute regarding the complainant has approached the accused persons to sell four flats, which he was allotted based on memorandum of understanding. The crux of matter is that according to the complainant, an agreement to sell dated 12.01.2017 executed by the complainant in favour of accused persons. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,50,00,000/- (One Crore fifty lakhs). The period of 2 years was fixed for completion of sale transaction. Within the stipulated period the accused persons have failed to perform their part of contract. During that period, the accused persons have snatched the SCCH-2 19 C.C.No.3399/2021 possession of original documents. The complainant lodged the complaint.
26. Further, on mutual discussion and understanding between the accused persons and complainant, a fresh agreement to sell dated 30.07.2019 came to be executed by and between the complainant and accused persons. As per the said agreement the total consideration was fixed at Rs.1,65,50,000/-. As per the said agreement, the possession of the property shall be delivered at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The complainant received Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration. The accused persons have issued three cheques for the payment of remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,40,50,000/-.
27. After careful reading of the complaint averments, it appears to this court that the accused persons have developed the property of complainant and they have divided four flats each. Further, there is no dispute with regard to allotment of four flats to the share of accused persons. Likewise, there is no dispute regarding allotment of four flats to the share of complainant. After cogitating the entire complaint averments and the evidence of complainant, it appears to this court that, the case of the complainant is that the accused persons have agreed to purchase four flats SCCH-2 20 C.C.No.3399/2021 for Rs.1,65,50,000/-. Out of which the complainant received Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance amount and the accused persons have issued three cheques for the payment of remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,40,50,000/-. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same got bounced. As such the accused have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 if NI Act.
28. Now, the question before this court is whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards the discharge of their liability or not?. Admittedly, either the complainant or from the side of accused have produced the original sale agreement. That apart, either complainant or accused side have produced the registered sale deed executed by the complainant in favour of the accused persons in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sell. Therefore, it appears to this court that, sale transaction has not been concluded. In other words, the complainant has not executed registered sale deed in favour of the accused persons. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2004 (8) SCC 614 between Rambhau Namdeo Gagre Vs. Narayan Bapuji Dothra. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land held that, "till the completion of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the transferee, the proposed transferor SCCH-2 21 C.C.No.3399/2021 who remains full owner of the property''. That apart, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4516-4517 of 2023 between Zoharbee and another Vs. Imam Khan (dead) through LR's and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, "a transfer of immovable property by way of sale only by way of deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred''. Further, observed that, "any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sec.54 & Sec.55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property''. Further observed that, "according to the TP Act, an agreement of sale whether the possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Sec.54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and not an agreement of sale doesn't create any interest or charge on its subject matter''. Therefore, it is crystal clear that through agreement to sell, ownership of the property cannot passes from one party to another. In other words, only on execution of conveyance (registered sale deed), ownership passes from one party to another.
SCCH-2 22 C.C.No.3399/202129. Apart from that, the complainant has not issued any notice to the accused persons in order to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. In other words, he has not issued notice to the accused persons by showing his intention to execute the sale deed. Likewise, he has not convey his message to forfeit the advance sale consideration. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any Civil Suit for specific performance.
30. Besides the above referred aspects, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he has clearly admitted that he has not filed Civil Suits. Hence, it is pellucid that there is no completion of sale transaction in terms of agreement executed by and between the complainant and accused. Moreover, the possession of the four flats have not been delivered to the accused persons. In other words, the complainant himself has admitted that the possession of the four flats shall be delivered at the time of registration of sale deed.
31. At the cost of repetition, there are no documents forthcoming from the side of complainant regarding he has executed the registered sale deed in favour of accused persons with respect to four flats. Besides the above referred aspects, it is not the case of the complainant that as per the SCCH-2 23 C.C.No.3399/2021 agreement to sell, he has executed the registered sale deed and cheques issued towards payment of balance sale consideration and same have been dishonoured. At the cost of repetition, the contract entered by and between the complainant and accused is not yet concluded. Therefore, the contention of the accused that Ex.P1 and other cheques were forcefully taken by the complainant with the help his daughters, son in laws and other supporters appears to be nearer to the truth. Further, it appears to this court that though the complainant is aged about 72 years, he has obtained the cheque forcefully with the assistance of his children, son in laws and other supporters and filled the same and filed the present case.
32. Again at the cost of repetition, the presumption favours the complainant. However, the complainant has not executed registered sale deed in favour of the accused persons with respect to four flats. As such, the statutory presumption will not come to the aid of complainant in the present case. Unless and until the complainant has executed the sale deed with respect to four flats in favour of accused persons, there is no liability on the accused persons to pay the balance sale consideration. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that mere issuance of cheque will not give rights to the complainant to file the present case.
SCCH-2 24 C.C.No.3399/202133. Suppose if the complainant has executed the sale deed and the accused issued the cheques for payment of balance sale consideration. Under such circumstances, the issuance of cheque amounts to issued towards discharge of liability. However, in the instant case, the complainant has not at all executed the registered sale deed in favour of accused till this day. Likewise either of the parties have not filed suit for specific performance before the competent Civil Court. Hence the complainant has no right to present the cheque for encashment. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200057/2016 between The Bidar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Mr.Girish, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that, "mere issuance of cheque without corresponding legally recoverable debt is not an offence''. In the instant case also there is no recoverable debt or liability. As such the above referred decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Hence, this court holds that, the complainant has failed to prove that, the accused has committed an offence punishable Under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
34. Point No 2 : In view of the above findings, this Court proceeds to pass following:
SCCH-2 25 C.C.No.3399/2021:O R D E R:
Acting U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of October 2025) (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge and ACJM., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri H K Sudheendra Rao.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque No.003266, dated:30.01.2020.
SCCH-2 26 C.C.No.3399/2021
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice dated:27.02.2020.
Ex.P.3(a) : RPAD receipts.
to Ex.P3(c)
Ex.P.4 to : Track consignments.
Ex.P6
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : Sri Praveen Mohan.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
- Nil -Digitally signed by
HP H P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2025.10.23
11:00:41 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.