Bangalore District Court
Bhaskara vs Vishakha T Salian on 3 December, 2025
KABC020750512024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this day of 3rd day of December 2025
CC NO.27382/2024
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.27382 of 2024.
2. The date of : 16-10-2024
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Sri Bhaskara
Complainant S/o Yadava Poojary
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.22, 2nd main road,
Dhobhi Nanjappa Block,
Near Rama Bhajan Temple,
K G Nagar,
Bengaluru -560 019.
(By Sri.C S Sudheer, Advocate)
4. Name of the Smt. Vishakha T Salian
Accused W/o Trishul S Kuloor,
Aged about 39 years,
Presently Residing at
SCCH-24 2 C.C.27382/2024
Manjunatha Nilaya,
No.542/13-29, 3rd cross,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore -560 017.
(By Sri.Manjunatha K T,
Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 03-12-2025
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that:
The complainant is running Event Management Company and LED screen Rentals. The accused is a friend of complainant's wife by name Smt. Priyanka N. As accused is known to the complainant and his family, they had a good acquaintance and good relationship from the past several years. The accused had approached the complainant for hand loan of sum of SCCH-24 3 C.C.27382/2024 Rs.3,75,000/- for the dpurchase of site and to clear her hand loans. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 03-07-2024 and sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on 06-07-2024 by way of cash and entered into an agreement with the complainant dated 09-07-2024. The accused agreed to repay the loan on or before 05-08- 2024 and issued a post dated crossed cheque bearing No.285975 dated 05-08-2024 for sum of Rs,3,82,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sunkenahalli Branch, Hanumanthanagar, PB No.1906, No,20, 1st A cross, 3rd main, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore to the complainant. As per the instruction of the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" dated 30-08-2024. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 13- 09-2024 through RPAD and speed post and the same was duly served to the accused. Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Accordingly, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act, hence, the complaint.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance SCCH-24 4 C.C.27382/2024 was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the summons appeared before this Court through her counsel, enlarged on bail and her plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
4. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1, and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 13(a) to
(e). Then, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed to be tried. The accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the records. The learned counsel for complainant referred the judg- ment rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 294/2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Criminal Revision Peti- tion No. 100171/2019 rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench.
6. The learned counsel for accused has referred the judgment reported in AIR 2024 Supreme Court 4103 SCCH-24 5 C.C.27382/2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 2311/2007 rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam decided on 25.10.2025.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that accused has committed offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
9. POINT NO.1:- It is the definite case of the complainant that, towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt, the accused has issued disputed cheque in favour of the complainant and when the cheque was presented, same was dishonoued for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the accused by issuing legal notice, but accused has failed to repay the cheque amount.
SCCH-24 6 C.C.27382/202410. In order to substantiate the contention, the complainant got examined himself as Pw1 and got marked in all 13 documents as ExP1 to Ex.P13(a) to (e). If the documents produced by the complainant are perused, Ex.P1 is the cheque which bears the signature of the accused. The accused nowhere has disputed the cheque which relates to her account. She even has not disputed her signature in the Ex.P1. It is deposed by Pw1 that cheque in question was issued by the accused towards the discharge of her legal liability. The cheque in question was presented by the complainant through her banker which was returned with memo as per ExP2 stating 'Funds Insufficient". Hence, he got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.3. The postal receipt are marked at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P5 and the postal track consignments, whatsapp conversation, PEN drive, translation copy of Voice message, Certificate of computer printouts u/Sec.65-B) (4) of the Indian Evidence Act are marked at Ex.P6 to Ex.P11. The reply notice is marked as Ex.P12, Loan agreement is marked as Ex.P13. The signature of accused is marked as Ex.P13(a) to Ex.P13(b).
11. The accused by leading evidence while admitting that the wife of the complainant is her friend SCCH-24 7 C.C.27382/2024 has taken the defence that she had chit transaction with the wife of complainant by name Priyanka Bhaskar and towards the chit transaction she was paying sum of Rs.5,000 to 10,000/- every month. When bid was raised, she had received sum of Rs.3,75,000/- from Priyanka Bhaskar and she had received sum of Rs.375,000/- in two installment. Out of the said amount sum of Rs.1,27,000/- was transferred from the account of Priyanka Bhaskar and sum of Rs.40,000/- was transferred from the account of the complainant and balance amount was paid by way of cash. While giving sum of Rs.3,75,000/- Priyanka Bhaskar had taken her signature on the blank stamp paper and blank cheque during the year 2022. Later without giving any notice and without bringing to the knowledge has lodged present complaint. It is further stated that accused has paid entire chit amount to the wife of complainant on installment. On payment of entire chit amount, when accused demanded the wife of complainant to return the blank signed cheque and blank signed stamp paper, the wife of the complainant instead of returning the said signed blank document and signed blank cheque came to the house of the accused and demanded for higher amount and obtained one more blank signed cheque and signature in the blank paper. When accused had SCCH-24 8 C.C.27382/2024 gone to the police station to lodge the complaint, since matter is pending before the court, they refused to take the complaint and advised her to resolve the dispute before the court of law. It is further stated by the accused that except the aforesaid chit transaction, she had no transaction whatsoever with the wife of the complainant.
12. In order to substantiate the defence, the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.
13. If the evidence given by the respective parties is perused, the accused has admitted her signature in the Ex.P1 and also admitted that Ex.P1 relates to her account. When signature is admitted in the Ex.P1, presumption shall be drawn U/Sec.139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act regarding issuance of cheque towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. Now, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption with preponderance of probabilities.
14. In a judgment relied by the learned counsel for complainant rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 294/2011 it was observed that of once issuance of SCCH-24 9 C.C.27382/2024 cheque has been admitted or stands proved, a presumption arises in favour of the holder of the cheque that he had received the cheque of the nature referred to under section 138 of the Act for the discharge, in whole or in part of any other liability.
15. In a judgment referred by the learned counsel for accused reported in Criminal Appeal No. 2311/2007 it was observed that "the inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by inference to the circumstances upon which they rely".
16. In a judgment reported in AIR 2024 Supreme Court 4103 relied by the learned defence counsel it was observed that "when financial capacity or acknowledgment by complainant to the effect of having advanced a loan to the accused was not indicated in income tax returns and when complainant failed to prove when the said loan was advanced and to explain as to how the cheque issued by accused alleged in favour of another person came to the hands of complainant and when complainant was not able to plead even a valid existence of legally recoverable debt, the acquittal of accused is proper.
SCCH-24 10 C.C.27382/202417. In the light of the observation made in the aforesaid judgment, coming to the case in hand, if the line of evidence given by the accused and the line of cross examination done to the PW.1 is perused, the accused nowhere has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused. Nowhere she has disputed the avocation of the complainant one stated by him. When no single question or suggestion was posed to the PW.1 disputing his financial status to lend sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused, under such circumstances the burden will not shift on the complainant to prove his financial competency to give sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused. Hence, even if complainant has not produced his income tax returns or his bank statement, this would not go to the root of the case of the complainant for the reason that the financial capacity of the complainant was not at all disputed by the accused. Hence, the 2nd Judgment relied by the accused has no relevancy to the case in hand.
18. So far as the service of legal notice is concerned, the accused in her statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted the service of legal notice. Further even in the evidence in chief, the DW.1 has admitted the SCCH-24 11 C.C.27382/2024 service of notice. But during the cross examination the DW.1 at one breath in page No.4 and 5 of her cross examination recorded on 10.10.2025 has denied the service of legal notice and deposed that though the complainant was aware of the change of the address of the accused but intentionally the complainant has issued notice to the old address. The DW.1 having deposed so, again states that she has given reply to the legal notice. If legal notice is not served to the accused, the question of giving reply notice would not arise. Further on service of legal notice the accused has given reply and there by denied the case of the complainant. When accused has admitted the service of legal notice, there is no obligation on the part of the complainant to prove the service of legal notice to the accused in compliance of Sec.138(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act.
19. When complainant has the previllage of presumption U/Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, when financial condition of the complaint is not denied or disputed by the accused and when legal notice is duly served to the accused, under such circumstances the entire burden lies on the shoulder of the accused to prove her defence that the disputed cheque was given as security towards the chit SCCH-24 12 C.C.27382/2024 transaction which she allegedly had with the wife of the complainant. If the accused failed to probabilise the defence, then she has to be convicted for the offence alleged against her.
20. It is the specific case of the complainant that towards the discharge of hand loan of Rs.3,75,000/- received in two installment in the month of July 2024, the accused has issued post dated cheque.
21. If the cross examination of PW.1 is perused suggestion was posed that complainant has collected the blank signed cheque and agreement from the accused and thereby misused the said two documents. As per the case of the complainant, in order to purchase site at Nelamangala and to clear hand loans, the accused had borrowed sum of Rs.3,75,000/- from him. The learned counsel for accused has posed question to the PW.1 whether he has verified any document to say that accused has purchased site at Nelamangala. The PW.1 has deposed that he has not seen any such document. During the further cross examination of PW.1 learned counsel for accused themselves have posed suggestion that the accused has purchased site at Nelamangala. From the aforesaid suggestion made by the learned SCCH-24 13 C.C.27382/2024 defence counsel it can be gathered that the accused has purchased site at Nelamangala. Hence, the possibility of accused borrowed sum of Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant for purchase of site at Nelamangala cannot be ruled out for the reason that even it is the case of the complainant that towards the purchase of site at Nelamangala the accused has borrowed money from him.
22. The complainant even has stated that towards discharge of hand loan also the accused has borrowed money from him. If the evidence of accused is perused wherein she has stated that she was running makeup studio and it was closed in the year 2021. It is also stated by the accused that she was the member of Kitty party and every month she was transferring money to the wife of the complainant towards Kitty party and during the year 2020-2021, finding it difficult to pay the Kitty party amount she had stopped Kitty party and after the closer of her business, in order to repay the money to the lenders, she had availed gold loan by pledging her gold ornaments. Hence, it can be said that the financial condition of the accused was not sound subsequent to the year 2020-2021. Hence, the possibility of accused borrowed money from the SCCH-24 14 C.C.27382/2024 complainant even for discharge of hand loan and for purchase of site at Nelamangala cannot be ruled out.
23. The accused in her statement recorded U/Sec. 313 has stated that Priyanka Bhaskar the wife of complainant was running chit business and till June 2024 she was paying every month the chit amount and in the month of June 2024 the complainant and his wife obtained the signature of the accused on blank cheque and blank sheet and that till the said date the accused was paying the chit amount regularly.
24. If the line of cross examination done to the PW.1 and the line of evidence given by the DW.1 is perused, the accused is not definite about her own defence. At one breath she state that there was no transaction between her and the complainant and that she had transaction only with the wife of the complainant but another breath admits that she had money transaction even with the complainant. According to the complainant he has given sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in two equal installment and in that regard the accused has issued cheque for Rs.3,82,000/- by adding sum of Rs.7,000/- on the principal amount. The accused has admitted that she even had transaction with the wife of SCCH-24 15 C.C.27382/2024 the complainant. According to the complainant apart from the present loan transaction of Rs.3,75,000/- the accused had loan transaction of Rs.3,90,000/- and for the discharge of the said debt, she has issued cheque for Rs.3,90,000/- and when cheque was presented before the bank it was dishonoured, but he has not filed complaint U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act for the reason that the accused has paid some portion of the cheque amount and agreed to pay the balance amount hence he dropped the idea of presenting the complaint against the accused regarding dishonour of earlier cheque for Rs.3,90,000/-. During the cross examination of DW.1, the learned counsel for complainant has confronted the cheque for Rs.3,90,000/- allegedly given by the accused. Since, accused failed to identify the said document, the said cheque was not marked as exhibit through the complainant. The learned counsel for complainant during the course of argument has filed memo with whatsapp conversation held between the accused and complainant wherein the cheque for Rs.3,90,000/- is shown. According to the PW.1, out of the hand loan of Rs.3,90,000/- received by the accused, she had repaid Rs,1,50,000/- and even though cheque issued by the accused for Rs.3,90,000/- was dishonoured but because the accused had made part payment and agreed to pay SCCH-24 16 C.C.27382/2024 the balance amount, he did to apt to lodge the complaint against her.
25. It is the defence taken by the accused that towards the chit transaction she had with the wife of the complainant, the cheque in question was issued to her and even though chit transaction was closed without returning the cheque, the complainant has misused the said cheque. The accused has produced the screen shot of the online payment made by her to the complainant and the wife of the complainant and also produced her bank statement marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D3. If the said documents are carefully perused, there is an entry regarding transfer of certain sum of money to the complainant from the year 2021 till the year 2024 so also transfer of money to the account of the wife of complainant from the year 2022 till the year 2023. It is clearly deposed by PW.1 that the transaction between his wife and the accused has nothing to do with the transaction which the accused had with the complainant.
26. As per the evidence of accused, from the year 2018 she had chit transaction with the wife of the complainant and she had nearly 6 to 8 chit transaction SCCH-24 17 C.C.27382/2024 with the wife of the complainant. During the course of cross examination of PW.1, suggestion was posed by the learned defence counsel that the amount mentioned in the bank statement and online payment are the payments made towards the chit transaction. As observed supra, from the year 2021 to 2024, amount was transferred to the account of the complainant and from the year 2022 to 2023 amount was transferred to the account of the wife of complainant. If really the accused had chit transaction with the wife of the complainant from the year 2018, she could have produced document to prove the transfer of money either to the account of complainant or to the account of his wife towards the chit transaction from the year 2018 to 2020. Though the accused has bent upon contended that she had chit transaction with the wife of the complainant but no piece of document has been produced to evidence the said fact. Nothing prevented the accused from producing cogent evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate the contention taken by her. It is the suggestion posed to the PW.1 that even though chit transaction was completed but the cheque given as security towards the chit transaction was not returned but was misused by the complainant and field false case against the accused. It is not made known by SCCH-24 18 C.C.27382/2024 the accused the year in which the alleged chit transaction was closed and the year in which the disputed cheque was given as security towards the loan transaction. If really disputed cheque was given as security towards the chit transaction, then on closure of chit transaction, the accused could have demanded the complainant to return the cheque and on such refusal she could have taken legal action against the complainant.
27. It is relevant to state here that the accused in her examination in chief has deposed that he has received sum of Rs.3,75,000/- from the wife of the complainant in two installment but she has not stated when she has received the said sum from the wife of the complainant. It is stated by the accused that while lending sum of Rs.3,75,000/-, the wife of the accused has taken the blank signed cheque and signature in the blank stamp paper. As observed supra the accused at one breath has stated that towards the chit transaction she had given the disputed blank signed cheque and signature in the blank stamp paper and at another breath states that the complainant has collected the blank signed cheque and signature in the blank stamp paper at the time of lending sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to the SCCH-24 19 C.C.27382/2024 accused. According to the accused she had cleared the said amount by paying chit amount every month and the wife of the complainant has raised the said chit in her name on behalf of accused and thereby adjusted sum of Rs.3,75,000/- received by the accused from the wife of the complainant. In the further evidence of the accused she has stated that in the year 2022 the complainant and his wife had taken the blank signed cheque and signature in the blank stamp paper. Again in the cross examination of DW.1 recorded on 10.10.2025 at page No.4 the DW.1 has deposed that, during the year 2021 when she had borrowed money from the wife of the complainant, the wife of the complainant had taken the disputed cheque. But if the cheque in question is perused, the cheque leaf is printed on 21.09.2023. Hence, when disputed cheque at Ex.P1 was printed on 21.09.2023 the question of complainant and his wife collecting the said cheque from the accused either during the year 2021 or 2022 does not arise. The accused having deposed that there was no transaction held between her and the complainant, again deposes that amount was transferred even from the account of the complainant. If really there was no transaction between the accused and complainant, the question of SCCH-24 20 C.C.27382/2024 complainant transferring amount to the account of accused would not arise.
28. If the entire evidence of the accused is perused she is not definite about her case. At one breath she states that cheque in question was issued as security in the year 2021 and at another breath states that it was given in the year 2022 and at another breath she states that it was given in the month of July 2024.
29. Ex.P8 is the screen shot of the mobile conversation held between the complainant and accused. The accused has not disputed the Ex.P8 instead she admits that she used to send whatsapp message to the complainant. If Ex.P8 is perused wherein the complainant has clearly informed the accused that he will deposit the disputed cheque to the bank and asked the accused to maintain balance in the account. The further conversation at Ex.P8 is perused, after dishonour of the cheque, the complainant informed the accused that if she failed to clear the amount through cash he will proceed against her legally. In the Ex.P8 the complainant has clearly stated that the cheque amount of Rs.3,82,000/- + 239 towards cheque bounce charges has to be paid by the accused. For the aforesaid SCCH-24 21 C.C.27382/2024 whatsapp message, the accused had send voice message. The Learned counsel for complainant has filed the typed voice message of the accused send through whatsapp and it was marked as Ex.P10. It is relevant to state here that the counsel for accused has not cross examined the PW.1 touching on the Ex.P8 to 10. Ex.P9 is the pen-drive. No question was posed to the accused denying or disputing the genuineness of Ex.P8 to 10. If Ex.P10 is perused, wherein accused agreed to pay the cheque amount and asked the complainant to wait till 10th and she will clear the amount on or before 10 th and in the event if she failed to pay the amount on the stipulated date, given permission to the the complainant to do what ever he want relating to the dishonoured cheque. From the aforesaid document it can be said that towards the discharge of the debt the accused has issued Ex.P1. Though the accused in her reply notice has stated that the complainant has not informed her about his presenting the cheque before the bank but if Ex.P8 is perused wherein by giving prior intimation to the accused cheque in question was presented. If the reply notice is read in its entirety nowhere she has taken the defence of chit transaction which she stated to had with the wife of the complainant. No whisper in the reply notice about the cheque in question issued as security SCCH-24 22 C.C.27382/2024 towards the chit transaction. In the reply notice she has taken all together different defence stating that she had borrowed sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2022 and she has promptly repaid the same through installment to the complainant and his wife and there is no outstanding amount due either to the complainant or to his wife. Thus, the accused has taken contradictory defence and said defence has not been proved by the accused. If Ex.P 13 is perused wherein also the accused has undertaken to repay sum of Rs.3,75,000/- with damages.
30. On appreciation of the evidence placed on record it can be said that the accused has failed to probabilise the defence taken by her and thereby failed to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the complainant.
31. In the light of the discussion herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that complainant has proved that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-24 23 C.C.27382/202432. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act prevail over the general provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be passed. In the light of the reasons on the Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 142 of NI Act.
Consequently, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,92,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs Ninety two thousand only), out of which Rs.3,87,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec.357 of CRPC and Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a period of one month, the accused shall be convicted to simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months.
SCCH-24 24 C.C.27382/2024It is made clear that in view of Sec.421 (1) of Cr.PC, even if the accused under goes the default sentence imposed above, she is not absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety stands canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 3rd day of December 2025.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF THE COMPLAINANT P.W.1 : Sri Bhaskara LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice.
SCCH-24 25 C.C.27382/2024
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Two Postal Receipts
Ex.P.6 &7 : Two Postal Track consignment
Ex.P.8 : Whatsapp conversation
Ex.P9 : PEN drive
Ex.P10 : Translation copy of voice message
Ex.P11 : Certificate for computer printouts
Sec.65 (B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec. 63 of the BSA 2023 Ex.P12 : Reply notice Ex.P13 : Loan agreement Ex.P13(a) to (e) : Signatures of the accused LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED DW.1 : - Smt. Vishakha T Salian LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the bank statement of the accused.
Ex.D2 Photos 2 in nos. Ex.D3 Statement of amount received by the
complainants wife through whatsapp. Ex.D4 Certificate u/sec.63 of BSA 2023. Ex.D5 UPI transaction statement relating to SBI and Canara bank.
Ex.D6 Whatsapp conversation held b/w the accused and complainant.
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by ROOPASHRI ROOPASHRI Date:
2025.12.04 17:14:42 +0530