Delhi District Court
Ruchi Sharma vs Arsh Car Connection And Ors on 26 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDDHANT KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)-06,
SOUTH DELHI DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
DLST020047062020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection And Ors CT Cases 3756/2020 PS Malviya Nagar Ruchi Sharma W/o Deepak Sharma, R/o A-80, 2nd Floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17.
..............Complainant Versus Arsh Car Connection And Ors 366, Abhay Khand-3, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201014.
.............. Accused No.1 Vinay Makhija S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Makhija, R/o 122, Top Floor, Nitikhand-II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP.
.............. Accused No.2
Digitally signed
by SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2024.10.26
15:19:03
+0530
CT Case No. 3756/2020
Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.1 of 23
Date of registration : 20.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 26.10.2024
Decision : Acquittal
1. The instant proceedings have originated out of a complaint filed by Ruchi Sharma against Arsh Car Connection and Ors for the offense under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act").
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the accused no.1 firm is a registered partnership firm duly registered under the Indian partnership Act,1932 under the name and style of 'Arsh Car Connection' and engaged in dealing with buying and selling of pre-owned luxury cars. The accused no.2 is directly dealing with the day to day routine business affairs of the said firm and responsible for all the acts and deeds for and on behalf of the accused firm and transactions against the same including towards the liabilities of the complainant being the owner.
3. The complainant approached the accused person and was interested to buy pre-owned cars in the month of March 2017 which was agreed by the accused and asked the complainant to deposit the amount time to time and the complainant had paid the total amount of Rs.1,25,05,000/- and paid the said amount by credit card on several dates and the booking was confirmed by the accused person and promised to deliver the cars in the month of January 2018.
Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.26 15:19:11 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.2 of 23
4. In December 2017, the accused no.2 approached the complainant stating that he would not be able to provide the delivery of the said cars on the agreed price by the complainant as the levy of GST on used cars are to be paid by the complainant and which was denied by the complainant and told the accused persons to cancel the booking of said cars and which was agreed upon by the accused persons and same was canceled and the accused promised the complainant to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,25,05,000/-.
5. In discharge of the part liability, the accused no.2 issued a cheque bearing no.022764 dated 23.12.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. It was also assured by the accused that the remaining amount will be also paid by him very soon to the complainant. The cheque was dishonored due to the reasons "payment stopped by drawer" on 03.01.2020. Legal notice was sent on 10.01.2020. The accused did not pay within the 15 days, thus, this present complaint was filed.
6. In support of her case, the complainant had led pre summoning evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.CW-1/A which reiterated the contents of the complaint. She relied upon the following documents filed alongwith the complaint :
(i) Copy of bank statement as Ex.CW-1/1 (colly).
(ii) The original cheque no.022764 as Ex.CW-1/2;
(iii) Return memo dated 03.01.2020 as Ex. CW-1/3;
(iv) Legal Notice dated 09.01.2020 as Ex. CW-1/4;
(v) Speed Post receipt as Ex.CW-1/5 & Ex.CW-1/6;Digitally signed by SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 CT Case No. 3756/2020 15:19:18 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.3 of 23
(vi) Computer generated tracking report as Ex.CW-1/7 and Ex.CW-1/8.
7. Ld. Predecessor issued the summons to the accused on 20.02.2020. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was served to him on 31.08.2022. He pleaded not guilty and stated his defense. In his plea of defence he denied liability for the cheque in question. He stated that the husband of the complainant, Mr. Deepak Sharma used to often visit his office. He did not know how the cheque in question came in possession of the complainant. The cheque in question belongs to him but signatures and other details on the same are not in his handwriting. He is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. He denied receiving legal demand notice, however, it bears his correct address. Address of accused no.1 as mentioned in the legal notice was shut down in the year 2019.
8. Given the nature of allegations and the defence taken by the accused, the case was tried as a summons case and the accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was listed for CE.
9. The complainant was cross examined by the counsel for accused as CW-1 on 25.02.2023 and 06.03.2023. On being asked she answered that she was not doing business of used cars independently and voluntarily stated that she was in the business of used cars along-with her husband. She admitted that used cars bought by her were bought for the purpose of selling. Payments Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 CT Case No. 3756/2020 15:19:22 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.4 of 23 made by buyers were made in one go or in installments as per their convenience. She admitted that unless and until entire sale consideration of subject cars is received, it could not be transferred in the supposed buyer's name. She did not know whether the mileage, color, model etc. of the car affects the price of a used car. On being asked she answered that she does not remember whether the number of cars transacted for is written in the complaint or not and after seeing the complaint, she admitted that the number of cars transacted is not mentioned in the complaint. She did not remember whether the registration number, model number, insurance number, brand number of used cars are mentioned in the complaint or not and voluntarily stated that information regarding these things mentioned would have been obtained only after the delivery of cars. She admitted that money is not paid without seeing the cars and details of the same. She went to deal with the accused for 12 to 15 cars. Brand, Model, Color, Insurance details and registration details were discussed with the accused when she went to deal with him. She could not give the details of each car which was agreed to be sold by the accused to her.
10. She did not remember whether there was any transaction with the accused before March 2017 or after December 2017. Payments made to the accused were made through card swiping as well as cash. Cash transactions are not mentioned in the complaint and voluntarily stated that her complaint regarding the transactions made through card only. She denied the suggestion that she had not placed on record the complete credit card Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:19:27 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.5 of 23 statements as those statements specify the payments made by the accused to her. She did not remember whether the accused paid her Rs. 1,46,79,000/- from 16 May 2017 to 02 January 2018 in all credit cards in her name. She denied the suggestion that the amount Rs. 1,46,79,000/- was returned by the accused for the amount which she gave him by swiping her credit cards for the cars mentioned in the complaint.
11. On being asked she answered that she did not remember the exact date when she went to meet the accused regarding the purchase of pre-owned cars as mentioned in the complaint. She denied the suggestion that she never went to deal with the accused no.2 for purchase of pre-owned cars. She denied the suggestion that payments made by her as mentioned in the complaint were for purchase of pre-owned (used cars) from the accused. She denied the suggestion that no payment in cash was made to the accused. She denied that the payments were not made for the purchase of the pre-owned/used cars to the accused. She denied that the accused had already paid back more than the amount taken by the accused in her 09 credit cards and voluntarily stated that she had mentioned only the amount which the accused had not paid back to her in her complaint and annexed documents. She stated that the total transactions with the accused is more than 3 Crores.
12. She admitted that in paragraph 4 she have stated that she have to take only Rs. 1,29,55,000/- from the accused and voluntarily stated that he exact amount to be received from the Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:19:33 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.6 of 23 accused is Rs. 1,25,05,000/- and the amount mentioned in Para 3 and Para 4 at the end of table is typographical error. She denied the suggestion that the accused has no liability to pay her either Rs. 1,29,55,000/- or Rs. 1,25,05,000/-. She did not remember that she had raised disputes regarding refund from the merchant/member bank of the accused (YES bank, HDFC bank) with regards to refund/return of the amount. She has not taken her GST numbers for sale of cars by her. She did not have any information whether GST was applicable for the sale/purchase of pre-owned cars when her transactions with the accused ended and voluntarily stated that all the transactions were carried out by her husband w.r.t GST. She admitted that her transaction could not be completed when the accused told her that GST has to be paid by her on the purchase of cars. On being asked she answered that she did not have any information whether GST was applicable for the sale/purchase of pre-owned cars when her transactions with the accused ended. She denied the suggestion that the cheque was not filled or signed or bore the signature of the accused. She denied the suggestion that the blank cheque leaf was taken away by her husband from the office of the accused and was filled and signed subsequently. She denied the suggestion that her husband also used to lend money on interest to the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused used to make payments in the credit card accounts of her husband and her daughter also towards the money taken by him.
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26
15:19:38
+0530
CT Case No. 3756/2020
Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.7 of 23
13. On 06.09.2023 CW-2 (husband of complainant) examined the chief and was cross-examined on 30.11.2023. He stated in his examination that they had booked the car with the accused. His wife and he were working together. When the accused denied delivering the said cars, he stated that GST would be applicable on the transaction. GST was introduced in July 2018 and GST slabs were not fixed at that time. Accused intended to impose 28% GST on the said transaction. He told him that he would return the amount to the same medium as it was paid. The accused told him that due to the dispute w.r.t. the GST payment, he would not be able to deliver the cars. The accused has sent them some letters stating that he would not be able to deliver the cars. He has relied upon the copy of the said letters which is marked as Mark 'CW-2/1 (colly)'. He has relied upon some whatsapp chats that took place between him and the accused. Copy of the whatsapp chat is exhibited as Ex.CW-2/2 (colly). Further he has relied upon one email that was sent by the accused to him and the same is exhibited as Ex.CW-2/3 alongwith the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
14. On being asked he answered that he did not take the GST number between July 2017 and January 2018. He did not take the GST number after January 2018 as well. As of today, he is not aware as to whether the seller of the car is required to pay GST and voluntarily stated that he knew that the buyer has to pay the GST. He admitted that he had put a charge-back with the HDFC Bank. He denied the suggestion that his wife and he had taken Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.26 15:19:49 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.8 of 23 money from the HDFC Bank after charge back claim and voluntarily stated that the transactions which were in the complaint for which they had not received any amount from HDFC Bank in charge back claim and they had not received the cheque amount. He could not tell that from May 2017 to January 2018, the accused paid more than Rs.1,46,00,000/- in his credit cards and accounts and voluntarily stated that he is not aware about these transactions because the accused created many fake banking transactions screen-shot.
15. CW-3 (Relationship Banking Manager of ICICI Bank) was examined in chief on 24.07.2023. CW-3 has brought on record his authority letter which was Ex.CW-3/A, account overview of account no.125405500207 which was Ex.CW-3/B, request sheet of stop payment request which is Ex.CW-3/C and system original signature copy which was Ex.CW-3/D. CW-3 also stated that as per record on 19.09.2019, they had received request from the customer for stop payment of cheque in question through internet banking. He also stated that the signature on the cheque did not match with the original signature on the record with the bank. Thereafter, CE was closed.
16. The accused was examined without oath u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 24.01.2024 and all the incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused denied liability for the cheque amount and reiterated his defence that there was no deal with the complainant regarding the pre owned cars. He met the complainant's husband in the Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:19:53 CT Case No. 3756/2020 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.9 of 23 year 2014. At that time, he was working as a GM with Rohan Motors. The complainant's husband used to purchase pre owned cars from him after which they developed a family relationship. In 2015, he left the company and started his own business. The complainant's husband then started purchasing cars directly from him and also provided financial help. The complainant's husband used to sell the cars on finance to his customers. His company's name was Surya Cars Seller. The amount which she transferred to his account is finance amount. She used to charge interest on the said amount in the form of pre owned cars and cash. He used to return the principle amount back to the complainant's credit cards as well as their bank account. He did not issue the cheque in question to the complainant. The cheque in question did not bear his signature. The cheque was stolen from his office. The complainant's husband used to visit his office regularly and at that time he was traveling with his family when the cheque was stolen. He had not filed any police complaint as he was not aware that the cheque was stolen. He found out about the cheque on the date when it was presented. He filed an online complaint with his bank to stop payment on the same date when the bank informed him about the presentation of the cheque. He did not received any legal notice from the complainant. He found out about this complaint only after receiving summons from the court. The second address on the legal notice is his residential address. The first address is his earlier office which is now closed. He has no liability of the cheque amount towards the complainant. He had paid more than the cheque amount to the complainant. The accused chose to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.26 15:19:57 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.10 of 23
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused filed an application for leading defence evidence along-with list of witnesses. The accused examined Mr. Ranjan Singh (Branch Sales Manager, HDFC Bank) as DW-1 and Mr. Himanshu, Deputy Manager, ICICI Bank as DW-2 on 30.03.2024. DW-1 has placed on record bank statement of the accused which was Ex.DW-1/1 and DW-2 has placed on record bank statement of accused which is Ex.DW- 2/1. Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
18. The counsel for the complainant argued that there existed an oral agreement between the parties regarding the sale and purchase of pre-owned cars. According to the complainant, the accused had approached her in March 2017 to buy pre-owned cars, and she subsequently made payments totaling Rs. 1,25,05,000 through multiple credit card transactions. The details of these transactions were outlined in the complaint. The complainant alleged that the agreement could not be completed due to complications involving the GST on used cars, leading the accused to agree to refund Rs. 1,20,00,000 through the cheque in question.
19. Further, the counsel emphasized that the issuance of the cheque by the accused, along with his admission that the cheque originated from an account maintained by him, triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The counsel cited legal precedents asserting that once the Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 CT Case No. 3756/2020 15:20:01 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.11 of 23 cheque issuance is established, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove its validity. The counsel also addressed the accused's stop payment instructions, arguing that such instructions do not negate the liability once the cheque is issued for a legitimate debt.
20. Regarding the legal notice, the counsel contended that it was sent to the correct address through Registered AD, and thus, service should be deemed effective. The accused, in his statements, admitted the address on the notice as correct. This, the counsel argued, fulfills the requirements under Section 138 of the NI Act, urging the court to convict the accused on these grounds.
21. Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued that the cheque in question was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability, contending instead that it was misused by the complainant. The accused consistently maintained that he did not sign the cheque and that it was provided only as security for a financial arrangement distinct from any sale-purchase agreement. To support this claim, the accused submitted certified bank statements reflecting payments totaling Rs. 1,46,79,000 made by him into the complainant's accounts, which, he argued, covered all dues owed to the complainant.
22. The counsel further questioned the legitimacy of the alleged car sale agreement, highlighting that there was no written contract between the parties detailing specifics, such as the Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:20:06 CT Case No. 3756/2020 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.12 of 23 models, color, engine specifications, or quantity of cars--a key omission in establishing the terms and value of any purported car sale. During cross-examination, the complainant failed to provide any concrete details about the cars supposedly sold, nor did she produce any documentation or communication confirming the existence of an oral agreement to buy or sell pre-owned cars. The only document produced, Exhibit CW-2/1, mentions a single Audi vehicle in connection with Emporia Car Sales Pvt. Ltd., unrelated to any direct transaction with the accused.
23. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act did not arise, given that the accused denied issuing or signing the cheque. This placed the burden on the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, which the counsel argued the complainant had failed to do. Moreover, the accused disputed the receipt of the legal demand notice, denying that he had any outstanding liability or obligation to make further payments. Based on these contentions, the counsel for the accused sought acquittal on the grounds of lack of evidence supporting the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
24. The presumptions in favor of the complainant in cases u/s 138 NI Act were explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491. The relevant portion is stated below -
"(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.Digitally signed by SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:20:10 CT Case No. 3756/2020 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.13 of 23
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defense. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defense. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defense, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden."
25. During the accused's plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied affixing his signature on the cheque in question and pleaded not guilty. He asserted that he had no liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Furthermore, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused reiterated his denial of the signature on the cheque. While the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ordinarily operates in favor of the complainant upon the issuance of a cheque being admitted, in this case, the accused has not admitted the issuance. Therefore, the court must scrutinize whether the accused has presented any evidence to substantiate his claim.
26. During the complainant's evidence, CW-3, Mr. Devender Singh, Relationship Banking Manager of ICICI Bank, was examined following the issuance of summons to him on Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 CT Case No. 3756/2020 15:20:15 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.14 of 23 10.07.2023. The bank witness was directed to produce certain documents, which were marked as Ex.CW-3/A (authority letter), Ex.CW-3/B (account overview of the account maintained by the accused), Ex.CW-3/C (request sheet for stop payment), and Ex.CW-3/D (system-generated copy of the accused's original signature). CW-3 brought on record the signatures of the accused as provided to the bank. In his examination-in-chief, CW-3 testified that the signature on the cheque in question did not match the original signature on record with the bank. He further confirmed that a stop payment request was received from the accused through internet banking. The testimony of CW-3, therefore, lends support to the accused's defense that the cheque in question was not signed by him.
27. In light of the defense consistently maintained by the accused throughout the trial, asserting that he did not sign the cheque in question--a defense that is corroborated by the testimony of CW-3--the court is of the considered view that the issuance of the cheque has not been admitted, and it was indeed not signed by the accused. As a result, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise in favor of the complainant. Consequently, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt, without the benefit of any presumptions. The complainant's case will therefore be thoroughly examined, along with the evidence on record, to determine whether the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been satisfied.
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26
15:20:19
CT Case No. 3756/2020 +0530
Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.15 of 23
28. The complainant's case is founded on an oral agreement between the parties for the sale and purchase of pre-owned cars. According to the complainant, the accused approached her in March 2017 for this transaction. The complainant asserts that she paid a total amount of Rs. 1,25,05,000/- through multiple credit card transactions, with the specific details of these payments outlined in the complaint. The payments were made via various credit cards, with the transactions taking place between 19.03.2017 and 21.05.2017. It is further the complainant's case that the agreement could not be executed at the agreed price due to complications arising from the imposition of GST on used cars. As a result, the accused allegedly agreed to refund Rs. 1,20,00,000/- through the cheque in question.
29. Section 138 of NI Act was introduced with the objective of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. The provision intends to discourage people from not honoring their commitments by way of payment through cheques. To attract liability under section 138, NI Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account and the same be presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 15:20:23 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.16 of 23 its validity whichever is earlier;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonor of cheque.
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
30. To obtain a conviction in the present case, the burden is upon the complainant to prove that all the above mentioned ingredients of the offense are fulfilled.
31. The accused has admitted that the cheque in question is drawn on an account maintained by him, and the cheque was presented for payment within its validity period. Consequently, Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 15:20:28 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.17 of 23 the first ingredient of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is fulfilled.
32. The third and fifth ingredients of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not disputed by the accused. The accused admitted that the cheque in question was returned unpaid and acknowledged that he had instructed his bank to stop payment. The reason for dishonor, as per the return memo dated 03.01.2020, is noted as "Payment stopped by Drawer," which falls within the parameters outlined in Section 138 NI Act. The complainant served a legal notice dated 09.01.2020 to the accused and as the accused failed to pay within 15 days of the receipt of the same, the present complaint was filed. Therefore, the first, third and fifth ingredients of the offense are fulfilled in favor of the complainant.
33. The accused has contested both the receipt of the legal demand notice and the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time the cheque in question was presented. As previously discussed, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply in this case; consequently, the burden of proof rests with the complainant to establish the necessary ingredients of the offense. Therefore, the court must assess whether the complainant has successfully demonstrated the second and fourth ingredients required under Section 138 NI Act.
SIDDHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: 2024.10.26 15:20:32 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.18 of 23
34. In determining the issuance of the legal notice, it is noteworthy that while the accused has denied receiving the legal demand notice from the complainant, he has acknowledged in his statements under Section 251 and Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that the notice bears his correct address. The law stipulates that when a legal notice is dispatched through the proper channel to the correct address of the accused, it is deemed to have been served. In the present case, the notice was sent to the accused's correct address via Speed Post Registered Acknowledgment Due (AD), and the receipt of the Speed Post is on record. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to communications sent by post in full force and it enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act envisages that when a registered notice is posted, it is presumed to have been served unless rebutted. In the instant case too, the same remains unrebutted. Therefore, it can be concluded that the notice was effectively served. This ingredient is thus fulfilled, reinforcing the complainant's case.
35. Regarding the second ingredient of the offense, the court must ascertain whether the complainant has successfully proven that the cheque in question was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant asserts that there was an oral agreement concerning the sale of pre-owned cars; however, she has failed to provide any written documentation to substantiate this claim. The absence of a formal agreement raises questions about the nature of the transactions purportedly conducted Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 15:20:37 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.19 of 23 between the parties. Specifically, the complainant did not specify crucial details such as the number of cars involved in the transactions, their respective models, colors, or engine specifications--essential information that would be necessary to determine the price and value of the used cars.
36. During the proceedings, the complainant was asked to provide these vital details, but she was unable to do so. This lack of clarity significantly undermines her assertion that the cheque was issued in relation to a specific debt. Furthermore, the correspondence, including emails and letters placed on record by the complainant, fails to establish any formal agreement between the parties regarding the sale or purchase of used cars. In fact, the only document that mentions a transaction related to a vehicle is Ex. CW-2/1 (colly), which refers specifically to an Audi vehicle and was sent to the complainant by Emporia Car Sales Private Limited. While the complainant's counsel argued that this document also states "For Arsh Car Connections," this assertion does not sufficiently prove that a legitimate sale transaction occurred.
37. Moreover, even if the document were accepted as evidence of a car sale, it only indicates a total transaction amount of Rs. 20,00,000. This figure starkly contrasts with the complainant's claim of a liability amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000. Such a discrepancy raises significant concerns regarding the validity of the complainant's assertions. Additionally, the defense put forth by the accused contests not only the signing of the cheque but Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 CT Case No. 3756/2020 15:20:41 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.20 of 23 also the existence of any enforceable debt. To support this position, the accused has presented certified bank statements, which reveal that he has made total payments amounting to Rs. 1,46,79,000 to the complainant's accounts.
38. This substantial amount further complicates the complainant's narrative, as it suggests that multiple financial transactions occurred that differ from what the complainant has claimed in her testimony. Given these considerations--the lack of a formal written agreement, the absence of crucial transaction details, and the conflicting evidence presented by both parties-- the court must conclude that the complainant has failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability related to the cheque in question. Consequently, this ingredient of the offense remains unfulfilled, raising significant doubts about the complainant's claims.
39. In conclusion, after thoroughly examining the facts and evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the complainant has not established a legally enforceable debt or liability in relation to the cheque in question. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply in this instance, as the accused has consistently denied the issuance and signing of the cheque. The testimony of the bank witness, CW-3, corroborated the accused's defense, indicating that the signatures on the cheque do not match the originals held by the bank. This evidence casts significant doubt on the authenticity of the cheque and the legitimacy of the complainant's Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.26 CT Case No. 3756/2020 15:20:45 +0530 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.21 of 23 claims.
40. Furthermore, the complainant's assertions regarding a purported oral agreement for the sale of pre-owned cars are not substantiated by any written documentation. The absence of critical details concerning the transactions, such as the number of cars, their models, and other pertinent specifications, raises serious questions about the validity of the complainant's claims. Despite being given opportunities to clarify these details, the complainant was unable to provide sufficient information to support her position. The only document submitted, related to an Audi vehicle, is insufficient to prove a transaction amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000, as it merely references a total of Rs. 20,00,000 and originates from a third party.
41. Moreover, the accused's defense, which includes evidence of substantial payments made to the complainant and the assertion that multiple financial transactions were conducted, further undermines the complainant's narrative. The certified bank statements submitted by the accused reveal that he has fulfilled his financial obligations, totaling Rs. 1,46,79,000, thereby challenging the notion that the cheque was issued for an outstanding debt.
42. In light of these findings, the court is compelled to conclude that the complainant has failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish the essential ingredients of the offense Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:20:50 +0530 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.22 of 23 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The discrepancies in the evidence, the lack of a legally enforceable agreement, and the robust defense presented by the accused lead the court to acquit the accused of the offense. The principles of justice dictate that in the absence of compelling evidence, the accused must be afforded the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the court acquits the accused, reinforcing the integrity of the legal system by upholding the principle that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
43. Consequently, the accused Vinay Makhija, is held not guilty and hereby acquitted for the offense punishable u/s 138 NI Act qua the cheque in the present case.
This Judgment contains 23 pages and each page bears the signature of Ld. Presiding Officer.
A copy of the order be uploaded on District Courts website.
Pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 26.10.2024.
Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.10.26 15:20:56 +0530 (Siddhant Kumar) JMFC (NI Act-06) South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 26.10.2024 CT Case No. 3756/2020 Ruchi Sharma Vs. Arsh Car Connection and Ors Page No.23 of 23