Bangalore District Court
M/S Dtdc Express Limited vs M/S.Krishna Enterprises on 1 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XXXVIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALULRU
Present : Sri. P. Shivaraj,
B.Com. LL.B.
XXXVIII A.C.M.M Bengaluru
Dated this the 1st day of July 2022
C.C.NO: 37347/2021
COMPLAINANT: M/s DTDC Express Limited
(formerly known as DTDC Courier and Cargo
Ltd.)
Rep. By its Asst. Manager Legal
Mr.Prabakar Nagappa
Office at DTDC House No.269,
Albert Victor Road, I Main, Chamrajpet,
Bangalore560 018
(Sri. P.K.Venkatesh Prasad,Advocate)
`
// VS //
[
ACCUSED: 1. M/s.Krishna Enterprises
Office at : Old Truck Union, G.T.Road
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Reptd. By its Proprietor Praveen Kumar
(J.S.Associates, Advocate)
Offence : U/s/ 138 of N.I Act of 1881
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted.
Date of judgment : 01/07/2022.
Sd/-
(P. SHIVARAJ)
XXXVIII A.C.M.M.
Bengaluru.
2
C.C.No.37347/2021
: J U D G E M E N T :
The complainant company is the private limited
company, and its authorised person Sri.Prabakar
Nagappa.S has filed the private complaint U/s 200 of
Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that, accused has
committed the offence punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881( For short N.I.Act,1881).
2. Complainant case is as follows:
The complainant company is engaged in the
business of providing courier services through out the
country. Accused is the Proprietor of M/s. Krishna
Enterprises proprietary concern and he is the customer
of complainant company. Accused has availed the
services of complainant company to transship the
consignments/parcels across the country. Accused is due
to pay sum of Rs.2,94,414 towards the transshipment
amount due to the complainant company. In order to pay
the aforesaid amount accused has issued cheque bearing
No.689027 dated 15/07/2021 for Rs.2 Lakhs in favour of
complainant company which is drawn on Indusind Bank,
Ghaziabad Branch, Uttar Pradesh.
3. As per the instructions of the accused
complainant company presented the aforesaid cheque for
encashment through its banker. The aforesaid cheque
was returned dishonoured with an endorsement
3
C.C.No.37347/2021
"Payment Stopped by drawer", in the bank account of
the accused, to that effect complainant company received
the cheque return memo from its banker on 09/09/2021.
Complainant company informed the aforesaid fact to the
accused and it has issued legal notice by way of RPAD to
the accused on 5/10/2021 and same was delivered to
accused on 13/10/2021. Further, accused failed to repay
the cheque amount. Complainant company alleged that,
accused has intentionally Stopped Payment in his bank
account to with an intention to dishonour the cheque.
Inasmuch, accused has committed the offence punishable
under section 138 of N.I. Act. On the aforesaid allegations,
the complainant company approached this court and
prays this court to punish the accused and to award the
compensation.
4. After registering the case, Cognizance taken of
the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I.Act and recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant. On finding
primafacie case, process was issued to the accused.
5. After service of the summons to the accused, he
appeared before this court through his counsel, and he
got released on bail. In compliance with provision of
section of 207 of Cr.P.C. papers of the prosecution were
supplied to the accused. The substance of the accusation
is readout to accused, in the language known to him, he
4
C.C.No.37347/2021
pledged not guilty and submit that, he is having defense
to make.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused,
complainant has adopted the evidence led by him at pre
summoning stage as his Examinationinchief and got
marked 7 documents which are at Ex.P1 to 7.
7. When the case is set down for cross examination
of PW.1, accused settled the case with the complainant
company outside the court and they have filed Joint
Memo stating that they have settled the case for
Rs.1,00,000/ and accused has paid the settled amount
of Rs.1,00,000/ through DD bearing No.164236
dt.2/6/2022 of Indusind Bank and nothing is due from
the accused in respect of their claim of cheque amount in
question and prays this court to pass the judgment as
per the memo so that, it will have binding effect on them.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the
materials available on record.
9. The following points that arise for my
determination.
:P O I N T S:
1. Whether the complainant company
establishes that they have settled and
received the settled amount from the
accused as stated in the joint memo?
2. What Order?
5
C.C.No.37347/2021
10. After carefully going through the materials
available on record and taking into consideration of facts
and circumstances of the case, my finding to the above
points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: PW1 is the Asst. Manager Legal
of the complainant company, he reiterated the complaint
averments in his sworn statement affidavit, which is
treated as his examinationinchief.
12. When the case is set down for cross
examination of PW.1, accused settled the case with the
complainant company outside the court and they have
filed Joint Memo stating that they have settled the case
for Rs.1,00,000/ and accused has paid the settled
amount of Rs.1,00,000/ through DD bearing No.164236
dt.2/6/2022 of Indusind Bank drawn in favour of
complainant company and nothing is due from the
accused in respect of their claim of cheque amount in
question and prays this court to pass the judgment as
per the memo so that, it will have binding effect on them.
13. In view of the joint memo filed by the parties, it
is evident that, accused has admitted the issuance of
cheque to the complainant company and his signature
6
C.C.No.37347/2021
there on, Further, accused has admitted the alleged
transaction with the complainant company and his
liability towards complainant company. In other words
accused has admitted the entire case and documents of
the complainant company in toto. Further, in the joint
memo complainant and accused have reported their
settlement by filing joint memo stating that, accused has
paid the settled amount of Rs.1,00,000/ through DD
bearing No.164236 dt/2/6/2022 of Indusind Bank
drawn in favour of complainant company and nothing is
due from the accused in respect of their claim of cheque
amount in question and same is acknowledged and
confirmed by the complainant company and it has to to
accepted.
14. Apparently, accused has admitted the entire
case of the complainant company and they have reported
their settlement by filing joint memo, inasmuch, there is
no material on record to disbelieve the reported
settlement by the parties and it is deserved to be
accepted. Furthermore, complainant company admitted
that accused has paid the settled amount and nothing is
due from the accused, such being the case to meet the
ends of justice and equity, and by considering the
admitted settlement and acknowledgement of cheque
amount by the complainant I am answering this point
in the Affirmative.
7
C.C.No.37347/2021
15. POINT NO.2: For the foregoing reason and
discussion, on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Exercising the power conferred U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.1881. (Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on 1st day of July 2022.) Sd/ (P. SHIVARAJ) XXXVIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
8C.C.No.37347/2021 ANNEXURES
1) List of Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. Prabhakar Nagappa.S
2) List of exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Authorization Letter. Ex.P.2 : Original Cheque. Ex.P.3 : Cheque return memo. Ex.P.4 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.6 : RPAD cover. Ex.P.7 : Report of Postal Department
regarding tracking of RPAD
3) List of Witnesses Examined & exhibits marked on behalf of the Accused: Nil Sd/ (P. SHIVARAJ) XXXVIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru.9
C.C.No.37347/2021 (Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate order enclosed) ORDER Exercising the power conferred U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.1881.
(P. SHIVARAJ) XXXVIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
10 C.C.No.37347/2021