Delhi District Court
Shrikant Panday vs Shanti Devi on 8 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, (NI ACT-03),
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT
PRESIDED OVER BY- MS. ANJALI SINGH, DJS
In the matter of :-
Mr. Srikant Pandey
S/O Mr. Kanahiya Pandey
R/O H No. 144, Street 6D/2, K Block
Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi
.... Complainant
VS.
Ms. Shanti Devi
W/O Mr. Anil Kumar
R/O H No. 87, Sector 10-A
Gurgaon, Haryana
.... Accused
1 Name of Complainant : Mr. Srikant Pandey
2 Name of Accused : Ms. Shanti Devi
Offence complained of or
3 : Section 138, NI Act, 1881
proved
4 Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5 Date of Filing : 11.07.2016
6 Date of Reserving Order : 30.08.2025
7 Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025
8 Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by :- Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Naresh Panwar, Ld. counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
ANJALI
ANJALI SINGH
CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI SINGH Date: 1
2025.09.08
15:15:35
+0530
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION.................3
B. CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT.......................................................................3
C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT.............................................................4
D. FINAL ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................5
E. FINDINGS OF THE COURT.............................................................................6
F. APPRECIATION.............................................................................................7
G. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................12
Digitally
signed by
ANJALI
ANJALI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.08
15:15:39
CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI +0530
2
A. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1.The present complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act") by Mr. Srikant Pandey (hereinafter "the complainant") against the accused Ms. Shanti Devi (hereinafter "the accused").
B. CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused was well acquainted to the complainant. The accused approached the complainant in the month of June 2011 on account of financial distress and required assistance. The complainant advanced a friendly loan of ₹2 lakhs through cheque number 000009 dated 23.06.2011 and the same was duly encashed by the accused. The accused further borrowed a sum of ₹50,000 and the same was advanced by the complainant vide cheque number 430023 dated 30.09.2011. The cumulative sum was to be returned by December 2011. The date of repayment was then extended to June 2012. In lieu of the payment, the accused proposed the complainant to purchase his property at Gurgaon, Haryana. The complainant then paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused as earnest money thereof. The previous sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also to be adjusted towards the payment of earnest money. The balance sale consideration was to be then paid by the complainant after executing the sale deed and getting physical possession of the property. On the instructions of the accused, the complainant further disbursed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-on 29.09.2012 towards part payment of the balance sale consideration. The complainant extended the date of repayment of the amount taken by the accused under the garb of selling the property till 30.11.2014. After this, the complainant against transferred a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to the accused on 20.10.2014 for further help. In totality, the complainant disbursed a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- to the accused.
3. The accused in discharge of his liability issued two cheques as security thereof. In the present complaint, cheque bearing number 763593 dated 24.12.2014, was issued for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The same is Ex. CW 1/1. Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.08 CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 15:15:42 +0530 3
4. However, on presentation, the cheque was returned as dishonored with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer" vide return memo dated 14.01.2015 [Ex. CW 1/2]. The complainant sent a legal demand notice [Ex. CW 1/3] on 04.02.2015 [Ex. CW 1/4 and Ex. CW 1/5] asking the accused to pay the cheque amount. The legal demand notice was delivered upon the accused. The accused failed to return the cheque amount and thereby the complainant instituted the present complaint.
C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
5. Cognizance of the complaint was taken by this Court and the accused was summoned vide order dated 17.02.2017. Notice u/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused by the Court on 14.05.2019 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The case was listed for the complainant's evidence thereafter. In support of his case, the complainant had examined himself as CW-1. He adopted his pre-summoning evidence. He produced relevant documentary evidence1 including the cheque in question, bank return memo, legal demand notice, postal receipt of the legal demand notice, its tracking receipt.
7. Thereafter, upon the conclusion of complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w 281 Cr.P.C on 25.10.2021 in which all incriminating material was put to the accused. The accused was also asked to personally explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against her. The accused denied receiving any sum from the complainant. She further denied having proposed the complainant to purchase their property. The cheque in question was given to one Mr. Ramanuj Mishra for some other purpose i.e. purchase of one company's shares. Only the amount on the cheque in question was filled by her husband.
8. The accused lead defence evidence in the matter.
1Ex. CW1/A- Evidence by way of affidavit.
Ex. CW1/1- original cheque bearing no. 763593 dated 24.12.2014. Ex. CW1/2- original cheque returning memo dated 14.01.2015. Ex. CW1/3- copy of legal demand notice dated 03.02.2015. Ex. CW1/4- original postal receipts dated 04.02.2015. Ex. CW1/5- Tracking report.
Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI SINGH Date:
2025.09.08 4 15:15:46 +0530 D. FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Thereafter, detailed final arguments were heard.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that a friendly loan was granted by the complainant to the accused. For repaying the said loan, a property was proposed to be transferred to the complainant, in terms of which some earnest money was also given at the instance of the complainant. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption by establishing any plausible reason for receipt of amount from the complainant. 10.1 The legal demand notice is deemed to have been served upon the accused.
The ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are squarely complied with. The handing over of the cheque-in-question has not been disputed. 10.2 The accused failed to bring Mr. Ramanuj Mishra as a witness despite it being relevant to decide the case at hand.
10.3 Had the money being given for securing a directorship in the company, the money would have been transferred to the company account and not the individual account of the accused.
11. The Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the money was indeed transferred to the account of the accused. However, the same was not on account of a friendly loan as alleged by the complainant. A perusal of the documents on record would reveal that the money was granted by the complainant for securing fund contribution. The complainant has failed to elucidate or contradict the same. 11.1 The averments of the complaint were completely silent upon the wife of the complainant obtaining a directorship in the company. 11.2 The accused has maintained the stance that the cheque in question was given to Mr. Ramanuj Mishra i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant, albeit for a different purpose altogether.
11.3 DW-3, namely Ms. Indira Pandey was called as a witness and lied on oath about Mr. Parasvnath Mishra not being her father.
Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI SINGH Date:
2025.09.08 5 15:15:50 +0530 11.4 The complainant has failed to establish existence of a legally enforceable debt.
E. FINDINGS OF THE COURT
12. The law on prosecution under Section 138 NI Act in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel2 is as follows-
(i) The drawing of a cheque by a person on an account maintained by him to another person;
(ii) The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability;
(iii) Presentation of the cheque to the bank of the drawee,
(iv) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank as unpaid either due to insufficiency of funds required to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount
(v) A notice by the payee or the holder in due course making a demand for the payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank in regard to the return of the cheque; and
(vi) The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
BURDEN OF PROOF OPERABLE UNDER THE NI ACT
13. The law stipulates that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted, a reverse onus clause operates and a presumption is raised under Section 1393 of the NI Act. In terms of the provision, a rebuttable presumption of law is raised in favour of the complainant, that, the cheque was issued for the discharge of a 'legally enforceable 2 (2022) 11 SCC 705.
3Presumption in favour of holder, Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
ANJALI SINGH Digitally signed by CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI ANJALI SINGH Date: 2025.09.08 6 15:15:54 +0530 debt'. The presumption is further read along with Section 118 (a) 4 of the NI Act whereby it is a presumption of law that the cheque was issued for the purposes of a va lid consideration.
14. The burden of proving the second ingredient mentioned in Paragraph 12 would ordinarily fall upon the complainant. However, the onus of proving the same lies on the accused in terms of the reverse onus clause under Section 139 NI Act.
15. The effect of the reverse onus clause is that, it is obligatory for the court to proceed with the presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of facts. The court does not have any discretion but to invariably draw the statutory conclusion. The accused thereafter is required to set up a defence and adduce evidence thereof for the court to believe the defence case. The anvil on which the defence case is to be judged is that of the 'existence of a reasonably probable case'. The standard of reasonability is that of a "prudent man".
16. The necessity of deciding whether, independently, the complainant has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [devoid of any rebuttable presumption in law] would arise only when the accused has been successful in discharging his evidentiary burden.
F. APPRECIATION PARTICULARS OF THE CHEQUE(S) FILLED BY THE PAYEE
17. It is apposite to note the settled proposition 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 is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted"5.
4Presumptions as to negotiable instruments, Section 118 (a) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 Digitally signed by CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 7 ANJALI ANJALI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.08 15:15:59 +0530
18. The accused admitted filling the amount on the cheque in question but denied filling other particulars of the cheque in question. The complainant during examination dated 22.01.2020 admitted to filling the 'name of the payee' and that the rest of the particulars excluding the signature were filled by the husband of the accused.
19. In the instant case, even if some particulars of the cheque have been filled by the complainant payee, the same is valid to engage the provision of law as enunciated under Section 138 NI Act. Furthermore, in view of Section 206 of the NI Act which states that even in case of inchoate stamped instruments, the drawer gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp.
SERVICE OF LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE
20. A perusal of the record reveals that the legal demand notice was sent to the accused on 12.02.2015. The tracking report on record does not showcase if the notice was duly delivered. The accused at the stage of framing of notice denied receiving the legal demand notice. However, at the stage of SA under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she admitted the correctness of the address to which the legal demand notice was addressed to. 20.1 In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in CC Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Md.7, once it is proved that the legal demand notice was duly sent by registered post on the last known correct address of the accused, the presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act comes into play and then the onus shifts on the accused to prove that s/he did not receive the legal demand notice. However, barring a bare denial, the accused has not brought on record any evidence to support his assertion about non-receipt of the legal demand notice. 20.2 Further, it is settled law that an accused who claims that s/he did not receive the legal demand notice, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the 6 Inchoate Stamped Instruments, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 7 AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 1705 Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH SINGH Date:
CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 2025.09.08 15:16:02 8 +0530 court, make payment of the cheque amount, and an accused who does not make such payment cannot contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138 NI Act, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. The limited defence (as is meted out from a perusal of the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C and recording of S.A under Section 313 Cr.P.C and D.E) is as follows:
21.1 Non-existence of a legally enforceable debt. 21.2 Cheque in question was handed over to the brother-in-law of the complainant for buying shares in M/S Apical Autotech India P. Ltd.
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT
22. A perusal of the notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C would reveal that the cheque in question was given to the complainant for Mr. Ramanuj Mishra i.e. the brother-in-
law of the complainant for purchase of shares in Apical Autotech India P. Ltd. Mr. Ramanuj Mishra did not agree to sell the company and accordingly, an instruction was given to stop the payment of the cheque in question.
23. The complainant in cross examination dated 04.07.2019 admitted that he did not disclose the factum of being a director with the accused in Forrader Autocomp P. Ltd. The same bears importance in light of Ex. CW 1/X-1 i.e. MOA of Forrader Autocomp P. Ltd and Mark CW 1/X-2 i.e. Fund Contribution document.
24. The complainant admitted Ex. CW 1/X-1 i.e. MOA of Forrader Autocomp P. Ltd. He admitted to his name being appended at Point A on examination dated 09.10.2021.
25. The witness was confronted with Mark CW 1/X-2 i.e. Fund Contribution document. The complainant has nowhere denied the execution of the document. Rather, he admitted his signatures at Point A of Mark CW 1/X-2 during examination dated 09.10.2021. A perusal of Mark CW 1/X-2 would reveal that the contribution was made towards the account of the company. It cannot be presumed that the same was given to the accused in her personal capacity. Even if that were the case, the onus was Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI Date:
SINGH 2025.09.08 9
15:16:06
+0530
on the complainant to rebut the same after doubt was raised by the accused by confronting the same to the complainant.
25.1 The complainant denied giving the money i.e. Rs. 13,67,000/- to the company for directorship and stated that the same was given to the accused in his personal capacity. However, he has not been able to explain the contents of Mark CW 1/X-2 despite appending his signature thereof. 25.2 A bare averment will not explain the factum of the cheque in question being given for a different transaction altogether than the case established by the complainant.
26. The complainant in cross examination dated 11.10.2019 stated that he could not remember the time and mode of payment when the money was given to the accused for the first time. A reasonably prudent person might not be able to recall the timing of the transaction, however, it is beyond comprehension as to how the complainant could not recall the 'mode of payment' for the alleged sum advanced the accused.
CHEQUE IN QUESTION NOT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT
27. The complainant was confronted with Ex. CW1/X6 (CW1/X1 in cross dated 22.01.2020 was corrected as Ex. CW1/X-6) which mentions cheques bearing number 763594 and 763593. The complainant did not deny the execution of such document. A perusal of the same reveals that the cheque in question was in fact given to Mr. Ramanuj Mishra for purchase of 33.33% shares of Apical Autotech India Pvt. Ltd. The same can also be corroborated from the Transfer agreement dated 29.11.2014 which is also mentioned in Ex. CW1/X6.
28. The complainant was examined on the document. He was evasive to answer whether Mr. Ramanuj Mishra was his brother-in-law. In the first instance, he outrightly denied the fact. Later, when a court question was put to him, he stated that 'he was not sure'. It is beyond reasonable comprehension as to how the complainant can plead not knowing his brother-in-law. It appears that the complainant was being evasive in Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI SINGH Date:
2025.09.08 10 15:16:10 +0530 order to hide the factum of the cheque in question being issued in favour of Mr. Ramanuj Mishra instead of him for a different transaction altogether.
29. A bare denial to the effect that the cheque in question was given by the accused to Mr. Ramanuj Mishra i.e. his brother-in-law for purchasing shares in Apical Autotech India P. Ltd. is not enough. This bears importance in light of the fact that, there is already a document showcasing otherwise.
30. The wife of the complainant and sister of Mr. Ramanuj Mishra was made a witness and she denied that the name of her father being Mr. Paras Nath Mishra. This is in stark contradiction to the fact that her husband in examination dated 09.10.11 categorically stated his father-in-law to be Mr. Paras Nath Mishra. The complainant i.e. the husband of DW-1 had admitted to the factum of DW-1 becoming a director in the company after he resigned. When DW-1 was confronted with Mark DW1/DB i.e. Form DIR-2 Of ROC dated 13.06.2014, wherein her father's name was mentioned as Mr. Paras Nath Mishra, she straightaway denied the same and stated that the same does not pertain to her.
30.1 She was confronted with her husband's testimony to this effect and did not have an affirmative answer to give in that regard.
30.2 It is clear that the witness did not want to establish a connection with her father, in order for the court to arrive at a conclusion, about the real nature of the transaction in question.
31. The cross-examination of the complainant throws a doubt upon the case stablished by the complainant.
G. CONCLUSION ANJALI SINGH Digitally signed by ANJALI SINGH Date: 2025.09.08 CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 15:16:13 +0530 11
32. The nature of inquiry is such that the accused has to initially rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, and that the accused has been successful in discharging her evidentiary burden on the anvil of preponderance of probability by relegating to circumstances from the cross examination of the complainant and from its own evidence.
33. Accordingly, the circumstances required the complainant to prove his case independently, if the accused in the first instance was successful in discharging her onus. The complainant has failed to do discharge his onus.
34. In light of the aforesaid analysis, this court finds that the accused is not guilty of committing an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
35. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant Mr. Srikant Pandey is disallowed, and the accused Ms. Shanti Devi is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused. Note: This judgment contains 12 pages and each page has been signed by the Digitally undersigned. signed by ANJALI ANJALI SINGH Announced in the open court on this 8th of September, 2025. SINGH Date:
2025.09.08 15:16:17 +0530 (Anjali Singh) JMFC-NI Act-03, PHC, New Delhi/08.09.2025 CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 12