Delhi District Court
Arti Saxena vs Mohit Jain on 2 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANSHIKA MEHTA
JMFC (NI ACT) - 04/ PHC/ NEW DELHI
CC No. 4899/2020
Unique Case ID No. DLND02-006405-2020
In the matter of: -
Ms. Arti Saxena
W/o Sh. Sarish Saxena
R/o B-2/2038, Rock View Apartments,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
..............Complainant
Versus
Mr. Mohit Jain
S/o Vinay Kumar Jain
R/o Q-3/11, DLF, Phase-II
Gurugram-122002.
.................Accused
Filing date : 16.03.2020
Offence Punishable : U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Registration date : 18.03.2020
Decision date : 02.05.2026
Final Order: : Conviction
Argued by: : Mr. Rameezuddin Raja and Mr. Preetpal Singh, Ld.
Counsels for the complainant.
: Mr. Sourabh Saini, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 1 of 28
Digitally signed
by VANSHIKA
MEHTA
VANSHIKA
Date:
MEHTA 2026.05.02
16:19:33
+0530
JUDGMENT
"If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us." - Francis Bacon INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Accused is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" or "NI Act"). He was summoned by this court to face the trial vide order dated 16.10.2020.
2. Tersely put, the case of the complainant is that the present complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises out of the dishonour of a cheque issued by the accused, Sh. Mohit Jain, in favour of the complainant, Smt. Arti Saxena. The complainant, being induced by the representations of the accused, who is a property broker, invested a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- in November 2018 for purchase of a property in a project named "Space Palazzo" at Gurugram. Despite receiving the entire consideration, the accused failed to secure any allotment and, upon repeated demands, agreed to refund the amount along with interest. In discharge of this liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 31.10.2019 for Rs.70,00,000/- along with other cheques towards interest. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on 24.01.2020 with the remarks " Funds Insufficient." A statutory legal notice dated 18.02.2020 was duly served upon the accused, calling upon him to make payment within 15 days; however, the accused failed to comply with the demand. Consequently, the accused is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability and was dishonoured, followed by non-payment within the statutory period, thereby giving rise to the present complaint within the prescribed limitation period.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 2 of 28
Digitally signed
by VANSHIKA
MEHTA
VANSHIKA
Date:
MEHTA 2026.05.02
16:19:41
+0530
Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.
3. The accused was summoned vide order dated 16.10.2020. Subsequently, on 01.04.2022, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused admitted that the impugned cheque belonged to him; however, he categorically stated that the same did not bear his signatures and that the particulars on the cheque had been filled by his accountant. He further stated that he had knowledge that the cheque had been dishonoured and returned unpaid on the grounds of " funds insufficient." The accused also stated that he had received the legal demand notice from the complainant; however, he had not replied to the same.
4. In his defence, the accused submitted that there had been business dealings in the nature of investment transactions between him and the husband of the complainant. He stated that the cheque in question had been handed over unsigned to Mr. Rajiv Kukreti, who was the accountant of the complainant, as a security towards the said investment transaction. He further submitted that he had no legal liability towards the complainant and that the present complaint had been falsely filed against him. He stated that the detailed defence would be disclosed in his application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Application under Section 145 (2) of NI Act
5. The complainant moved an application under Section 145 (2) of NI Act. The complainant had alleged that the accused issued the cheque towards repayment of money paid for purchase of a property, which was later dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused, however, denied any such transaction or liability, contending that the complaint was false, vague, and based on a fabricated story, and further alleged that the cheque in question was neither issued to the complainant nor signed by him, claiming misuse and forgery of a security cheque. It was also stated that a police complaint regarding the alleged forgery had already been lodged. The CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 3 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:19:49 +0530 accused asserted that there existed no legally enforceable debt and that the proceedings had been initiated solely to harass and extort money.
6. The said application was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2022.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE COMPLAINANT Examination-in-chief of CW-1
7. The complainant examined herself as CW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex. CW-1/A. In her affidavit, CW-1 reiterated and affirmed the contents of the complaint on oath. In support of her case, CW-1 relied upon and proved the following documents:
1. Ex. CW-1/1 - Summary of Account
2. Ex. CW-1/2 - Original cheque bearing no. 000024;
3. Ex. CW-1/3 - Original return memo
4. Ex. CW-1/4 - Legal demand notice dated 18.02.2020;
5. Ex. CW-1/5 - Original speed post receipts along with tracking reports;
8. In her examination-in-chief, CW-1, Smt. Arti Saxena, deposed on oath that she is the complainant in the present case and a Director of M/s Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. She stated that the accused, Mohit Jain, who is a property broker, was introduced to her in April 2018 through her husband, Sh. Sarish Saxena. The accused induced her and her husband to invest in a real estate project namely "Spaze Palazzo" situated at Sector 69, Gurugram, Haryana, representing that the investment would yield substantial appreciation and rental income. Believing the representations, she agreed to purchase a property in the said project for a total consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-, and on the assurance that a desirable unit would be allotted upon full upfront payment and that an allotment letter would be issued within one month, she CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 4 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:19:54 +0530 transferred the entire amount on 02.11.2018 from her personal bank account to the account of the accused, which is exhibited as Ex. CW-1/1.
9. She further deposed that despite repeated follow-ups, the accused failed to provide any allotment letter or execute any documents, and continued to delay the matter on one pretext or another, even though draft documents such as letter of intent and lease agreement were shared but never finalized. Upon insisting on meeting the builder, the accused disclosed that the property could not be booked and instead offered alternative properties, which she refused, and demanded refund of her money. Initially, the accused refused, claiming that the funds had been invested elsewhere, but subsequently agreed to repay Rs.70,00,000/- along with interest of Rs.6,30,000/-.
Cross-Examination of CW-1
10. During the cross-examination of CW-1, Smt. Arti Saxena, she deposed that, to her knowledge, the accused was a property broker, though she was unaware whether he was dealing with third-party properties. She admitted that she was introduced to the accused through her husband and had met the accused only two to three times in relation to the transaction. She further stated that the payment of Rs.70,00,000/- was made through her personal bank account via NEFT, with the account details of the accused being provided by her husband. Upon being confronted with the complaint, she acknowledged that no specific unit or property number was mentioned therein, though she volunteered that the project name and location were stated. While she claimed to have visited the project site twice and to have been shown two units, she admitted that these facts were not mentioned in the complaint. She further conceded that there was no specific property identified for which the payment was made and expressed inability to recall whether the transaction was time-bound.
11. In her further cross-examination, CW-1 admitted that she is a Director in M/s Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd., along with her husband, and that the company had also initiated separate proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against the same accused in relation to the same project and transactions. She initially stated that decision-making was undertaken through board CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 5 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:20:00 +0530 resolutions but later admitted that all decisions were effectively taken by her and her husband, there being no other directors. She further admitted that there is no mention in the complaint or evidence that the transaction was composite or involved the company, though she volunteered that it was partly personal. She stated that most communications with the accused were handled by her husband and that she was not fully aware of the communications or financial dealings from the company's side. She could not recall details such as size, valuation, or documentation of the property and admitted that no agreement to sell, sale deed, or other title documents were placed on record. She also admitted that no written communication was issued by her to the accused for completion of the transaction or payment of interest, and that no power of attorney was executed in favour of her husband, despite him handling the dealings.
12. When confronted with an email allegedly sent by the accused regarding delay in payments and possible cancellation of the deal, she expressed inability to comment on the same, stating that it was not addressed to her. She denied knowledge of any cancellation or forfeiture of the amount. She also admitted that the cheque in question was not handed over to her directly by the accused and that she could not recall the exact date or mode of its receipt, though she stated it was around October 2019. Further, she admitted lack of knowledge regarding the builder's name, absence of any documentary proof of requests made to arrange meetings with the builder, and inability to confirm execution of any buyback agreement.
Examination-in-chief of CW-2
13. CW-2 stated that he had brought the summoned records, which were exhibited as Ex. CW2/A (Colly) (objected to for want of authority and mode of proof), comprising documents with respect to the return of cheque bearing no. 000024 amounting to Rs. 70 lakhs. He further stated that he had also brought and exhibited the statement of account of the complainant for the period from 01.10.2018 till 31.12.2018 as Ex. CW2/B. Cross-Examination of CW-2 CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 6 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:20:06 +0530
14. On being cross-examined, CW-2 stated that he has been working with ICICI Bank since October, 2021; however, upon further questioning, he stated that he does not remember the exact year of his joining. He admitted that he does not possess any authority letter in his favour from the bank to submit Ex. CW2/A (Colly) and Ex. CW2/B and further admitted that he is not carrying any authority letter or authorization in his favour to depose in relation to the documents exhibited. He also admitted that he has not produced any certificate certifying the authenticity of the documents exhibited. He admitted that the signatures appearing on Ex. CW2/A (Colly) are not his and stated that the printout of the bank statement exhibited as Ex. CW2/A (Colly) has not been taken out by him. He further stated that the signatures on Ex. CW2/A (Colly) are of Mr. Kapil Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager. He also stated that he has no personal knowledge of the matter or of the period to which the bank statements pertain.
Examination-in-chief of CW-3
15. CW-3 stated that he had brought the certified copy of the bank statement pertaining to account no. 301210100000131 for the period from 03.12.2018 to 24.01.2020, along with the details of dishonour of cheque bearing no. 000024, and the same were collectively exhibited as Ex. CW3/A (Colly, 4 pages). He further stated that he had also brought the authority letter in his favour, which was exhibited as Ex. CW3/B. Cross-Examination of CW-3
16. On being cross-examined, CW-3 that he had joined the bank in the year 2009 and was presently working as a clerk. He stated that he did not personally deal with account no. 301210100000131. He further stated that he had not taken out the printouts of Ex. CW3/A (Colly, 4 pages) himself. He admitted that the signatures appearing on Ex. CW3/A (Colly, 4 pages) were not his and voluntarily stated that the same were of the Branch Manager of the bank. He further admitted that he had not brought any authority letter in favour of the Branch Manager from Union Bank. He also admitted that there was no mention of cheque no. 000024 dated 31.10.2019 in the bank statement of account; however, he voluntarily stated that the same was reflected in the Inward Cheques Inquiry at page no. 1 of Ex. CW3/A (Colly, 4 pages).
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 7 of 28
Digitally
signed by
VANSHIKA
VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02
16:20:12
+0530
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
17. Thereafter, on 15.03.2024, the statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C., read with Section 281 Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused stated that the present complaint was false, frivolous and devoid of merit, and he denied each and every allegation made therein. He stated that there was no independent or separate transaction between him and the complainant in his personal capacity. He further stated that the transaction in question had been a composite commercial transaction between his company, KHOMES Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and the complainant's company, Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd., structured as a buyback arrangement in respect of certain immovable properties. As per the agreed terms, Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. was required to make payment of approximately Rs. 4.45 crores within a stipulated period, against which the property transaction was to be completed, with a further understanding of buyback after a specified period along with assured returns. However, the complainant's company failed to make the complete payment within the agreed timeline, and consequently, the transaction did not materialise and stood cancelled.
18. The accused further stated that the complainant had admitted during her cross- examination that the transaction was composite in nature and had been dealt with by Mr. Sarish Saxena on behalf of Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. He further stated that multiple complaints arising out of the same transaction were pending before the learned court, and in one such complaint bearing CC No. 5020/2020, detailed cross-examination of Mr. Sarish Saxena had already been conducted, which was relevant and had been exhibited as Ex. DW1/1.
19. The accused further stated that the complainant had also filed a civil suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing CS (COMM) 179/2023, wherein the pleadings materially contradicted the case set up in the present complaint. He stated that it was evident from the documents filed in the said civil proceedings that the cheque in question had not been issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, but was allegedly given as part of CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 8 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:20:20 +0530 an arrangement relating to assured returns and buyback assurance in a proposed real estate transaction. Various documents including informal agreements, handwritten notes, and draft Memoranda of Understanding (Ex. DW1/2 to Ex. DW1/6) indicated that the cheques were linked to contingent obligations subject to completion of the transaction, which never occurred due to default on part of Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
20. The accused further stated that as per the agreed terms, execution of title documents and entitlement to assured returns were contingent upon full payment by the complainant's company, which admittedly was never made. In this regard, he relied upon email dated 24.03.2019 (Ex. DW1/7), wherein KHOMES Realtors Pvt. Ltd. had informed Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. that the transaction could not proceed due to non-payment of the agreed amount and had called upon them to complete payment within the stipulated time along with interest.
21. He further stated that the cheques in question had never been issued towards discharge of any liability and, in fact, had been handed over unsigned to an employee of Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. for limited purposes. The accused alleged that the said cheques had been misused and his signatures had been forged. He stated that he had already lodged complaints dated 22.05.2020 and 04.07.2020 (Ex. DW1/8) against the complainant and others regarding such misuse and forgery. Upon becoming aware of the misuse, he had also issued instructions to his bank to stop payment vide letter dated 21.03.2020 (Ex. DW1/9).
EVIDENCE LED BY THE DEFENCE Examination-in-chief of DW-1
22. In his examination-in-chief, DW-1 stated that no separate deal had ever taken place between him and the complainant, Ms. Arti Saxena, and that the complainant had no role in the alleged transaction. He further stated that the complainant and her husband, Sh. Sarish Saxena, were Directors of Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. He stated that he was a Real Estate Broker duly CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 9 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:20:26 +0530 approved by RERA in Gurugram and had been engaged in providing real estate solutions. He stated that in the year 2017, Sh. Sarish Saxena came into his contact for a property deal concerning SPAZE Palazo, Sector 69, Gurugram, for which the total consideration was fixed at Rs.6.45 crores, payable within a period of three months. He further stated that an amount of approximately Rs.3 crores remained outstanding, as the complainant and her husband failed to arrange funds and did not make the balance payment within the agreed time despite repeated follow-ups. He stated that he had sent emails to both the Directors regarding the outstanding payment, pursuant to which a meeting was fixed for further discussions. He further stated that thereafter, the complainant and her husband approached him with a fresh proposal involving a buyback arrangement in respect of two properties.
23. The witness further stated that the complainant had no concern with the transaction and that he had never executed any agreement with her. He stated that the deal amount was subsequently reduced from Rs.6.45 crores to Rs.4.45 crores, which was to be paid by Sh. Sarish Saxena within three months; however, the said payment was not made within time and was delayed on one pretext or another, causing him substantial financial loss. He stated that due to non-payment of the balance amount, the deal was cancelled and the amount already paid was forfeited, which was duly communicated through email. He further stated that several complaints bearing Nos. CC NI Act 140/2021, 6/2021, 5020/2020 and 1664/2023 had been filed against him by Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors, namely Sh. Sarish Saxena and Ms. Arti Saxena, and that a civil suit bearing No. CS (COMM) 179/2023 was also pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
24. The witness further stated that Sh. Sarish Saxena, in connivance with his accountant, Mr. Rajeev Upreti, had hatched a conspiracy against him. He stated that he had handed over unsigned cheques to Mr. Rajeev Upreti at the instance of Sh. Sarish Saxena during the course of the business dealings. He further stated that disputes arose between Sh. Sarish Saxena, Ms. Arti Saxena, Ms. Neelam and Mr. Rajeev Upreti during the course of the transaction. He stated that Sh. Sarish Saxena failed to make timely payments due to personal issues and thereafter forged his signatures on the cheques. He further stated that he had lodged complaints against the said CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 10 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:20:37 +0530 persons for their wrongful acts. He also stated that an FIR bearing No. 166/2020 had been registered at Police Station DLF Phase-II, Gurugram at the instance of Sh. Sarish Saxena, wherein false allegations regarding cash transactions were made, but no recovery had been effected during investigation.
25. The witness further stated that it had been mutually agreed between him and Sh. Sarish Saxena that the business transaction could result in either profit or loss depending upon market conditions. He reiterated that the deal could not materialise due to the conduct and delay on the part of Sh. Sarish Saxena and that he had suffered heavy losses. He further stated that the complainant had not placed on record the entire communications and chats exchanged between him and Sh. Sarish Saxena. He categorically stated that he did not have any legally enforceable liability towards the complainant and that the present complaint had been falsely filed against him.
26. The witness further relied upon documents Mark DW1/1 to Mark DW1/10 (colly), which were copies of various documents including cross-examination, agreements, handwritten notes, draft MOUs, email dated 24.03.2019, complaint dated 22.05.2020, letter dated 21.03.2020 and documents pertaining to Civil Suit No. CS (COMM) 179/2023.
Cross-Examination of DW-1
27. On being cross-examined, the DW-1 stated that he had been engaged in the business of brokerage for the last 24 years and that he knew the complainant through her husband, Sh. Sarish Saxena, who had introduced her to him towards the end of the transaction when he could not make the payment. He stated that he had met Sh. Sarish Saxena around the year 2017 at a BNI meeting. He denied the suggestion that the complainant had made a payment of Rs.70 lakhs into his personal bank account. He further stated that he did not remember in which bank accounts Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. or the complainant had made payments. He denied the suggestion that a sum of Rs.3,42,50,000/- had been paid by Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant into his bank account as well as the account of Khomes Realtors Pvt. Ltd. towards purchase of units in Spaze Palazo. Upon being confronted with email dated 24.03.2019 (Mark CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 11 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:20:42 +0530 DW1/7), the witness admitted the same and stated that less than 50% of the total payment had been received, clarifying that approximately Rs.3,42,50,000/- had been received in various accounts of Khomes Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and himself, though he did not exactly remember the details. He voluntarily stated that initially the units were G-2 and G-3, which were later changed to G-22 and G-29. He further stated that prior to this deal, he had facilitated other property transactions for Sh. Sarish Saxena, including one at K-3/1, DLF Phase-II and another at Sobha International City, Sector-109, Gurugram, and that there had been delay on the part of Sh. Sarish Saxena in those transactions as well. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show that the transaction regarding Units G-22 and G-29 was for Rs. 6.45 crores or that the units were changed from G-2 and G-3 to G-22 and G-29, though he stated that he could produce the same.
28. Upon further cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not brought any document to substantiate the transaction amount of Rs.6.45 crores and reiterated that the deal initially related to Units G-2 and G-3, which were later changed to G-22 and G-29. He admitted that approximately 14-15 cheques had been issued by him in relation to the transaction and stated that the same were unsigned and had been handed over to Mr. Rajeev Upreti. He stated that he could not answer whether certain cheques had been honoured without seeing the records. He further stated that he could not recall whether the said cheques were mentioned in his complaint dated 04.07.2020, though he volunteered that he had filed another complaint at PS Badshahpur regarding misuse of cheques. He stated that he had made an oral complaint to his bank regarding misuse of cheques, which was recorded by the bank, and denied the suggestion that no such complaint had been made. He denied the suggestion that Rs.70 lakhs had been paid by the complainant to him from her personal bank account or through RTGS on 02.11.2018 and stated that he did not remember whether he had admitted receiving Rs. 70 lakhs in his complaint dated 04.07.2020.
29. On further cross-examination, upon being shown documents, the witness admitted that the bank account bearing no. 016163400000541 with Yes Bank belonged to him, though he stated that the same had been frozen pursuant to orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He stated that he could not confirm receipt of Rs. 69,30,000/- on 02.11.2018 without checking his CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 12 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:20:48 +0530 bank records and denied that Rs.70,000/- had been deposited as TDS in his account. He admitted his PAN number as reflected in the document Ex. DW1/12 but stated that he had not claimed any such TDS. He admitted that he had received a total amount of Rs.3,42,50,000/- from Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors authorised by Sh. Sarish Saxena but denied that Rs.70 lakhs out of the said amount had been paid by the complainant. Upon being confronted with his complaint dated 04.07.2020 (Ex. DW1/13), he admitted that the said complaint had been filed by him and that it mentioned receipt of Rs.70 lakhs from the complainant on 02.11.2018, though he volunteered that the said amount had been received from the Directors of Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. in a composite transaction.
30. Upon being shown the judgment dated 03.09.2025 (Ex. DW1/14), he admitted that he had admitted receiving Rs.3,42,50,000/- from the plaintiffs in the said suit and that a decree had been passed on that basis, and further admitted that the complainant was also a plaintiff therein. He admitted that the cheque in question bearing no. 000024 had been dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient," that he had received legal notice dated 18.02.2020, and that he had not made any payment thereafter, though he volunteered that he had forfeited the amount received and had sent a notice in that regard. He further admitted that no written contract had been executed between him and the complainant authorising forfeiture of the amount.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES
31. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is fully maintainable and all statutory ingredients stand duly satisfied. It is argued that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- from her personal bank account to the accused in November 2018 pursuant to a property transaction relating to a project in Sector 69, Gurugram. Despite receipt of the entire consideration amount, the accused neither allotted the promised property nor executed any document in favour of the complainant. Upon persistent demands, the accused admitted his liability and issued multiple CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 13 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:20:53 +0530 cheques, including the cheque in question for Rs.70,00,000/- towards discharge of the principal liability.
32. Ld. Counsel submits that the cheque bearing no. 000024 dated 31.10.2019, when presented, was dishonoured on account of "Funds Insufficient," thereby attracting the penal provisions of Section 138 NI Act. A statutory legal notice dated 18.02.2020 was duly served upon the accused; however, despite receipt of the same, the accused failed to make payment within the prescribed period, completing the cause of action.
33. It is further contended that the existence of legally enforceable debt stands clearly established. The accused has himself admitted receipt of the amount of Rs.70,00,000/- both in his complaint to the DCP and during cross-examination. Additionally, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in connected civil proceedings, wherein a decree was passed on the basis of admissions made by the accused regarding receipt of substantial sums from the complainant and related parties. Thus, liability of the accused is unequivocally proved.
34. With respect to the discrepancy in the amount reflected in the bank statement, it is clarified that Rs.69,70,000/- was transferred directly, while Rs.70,000/- was deducted as TDS and deposited on behalf of the accused, thereby constituting the full consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-.
35. Refuting the defence regarding forged signatures and non-execution of cheque, learned counsel submits that the accused failed to challenge the authenticity of the cheque at the appropriate stage during trial. Despite seeking examination of bank witnesses under Section 145(2) NI Act, the accused did not put any suggestion regarding forgery or disputed signatures to any of the witnesses, including the concerned bank officials. No steps were taken to summon specimen signatures or seek expert opinion. Consequently, such a defence is an afterthought and devoid of merit.
36. It is further argued that statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act operate in favour of the complainant, including presumption as to the genuineness of signatures CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 14 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:20:59 +0530 and issuance of cheque in discharge of liability. The dishonour of the cheque was on account of "Funds Insufficient" and not due to signature mismatch, which further weakens the defence of forgery.
37. Ld. Counsel also submits that the defence of forfeiture of amount is untenable, as the same has already been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court in civil proceedings and, in any event, forfeiture cannot be claimed in the absence of a valid contractual stipulation.
38. Per contra, Ld. for the accused has argued that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to establish the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is submitted that the foremost requirement under Section 138 NI Act, existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability has not been proved. The complainant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence to establish that an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- was due and payable by the accused. In the absence of proof of such liability, the very foundation of the complaint collapses.
39. It is further argued that the accused had categorically denied his signatures on the cheque at the stage of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Once execution of the cheque was disputed, the burden shifted upon the complainant to prove the same. However, no handwriting expert or bank official was examined to verify the signatures. Consequently, the execution of the cheque remains unproved, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act does not arise.
40. Ld. counsel has also highlighted that the complainant's case is based on an alleged property transaction concerning "Spaze Palazzo, Gurugram," yet no documentary evidence such as agreement to sell, allotment letter, or sale deed has been produced. In a transaction involving such a substantial amount, the complete absence of documentation renders the complainant's version inherently improbable.
41. Attention is further drawn to a material discrepancy between the bank statement and the cheque amount. While the bank statement reflects a transfer of Rs.69,30,000/-, the cheque CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 15 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:21:04 +0530 amount is Rs.70,00,000/-. This unexplained inconsistency casts serious doubt on the alleged liability and supports the defence that the cheque particulars were filled subsequently.
42. It is also contended that the documents relied upon by the complainant merely establish issuance and dishonour of the cheque and service of legal notice, but do not prove the existence of any legally enforceable debt, which is sine qua non for conviction under Section 138 NI Act.
43. On the aspect of maintainability, it is argued that the complainant lacks locus standi under Section 142 NI Act. The evidence indicates that the alleged transaction was between corporate entities, namely Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. and KHOMES Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and not between the complainant and the accused in their personal capacities. Thus, the complainant cannot be treated as the payee or holder in due course. It is further submitted that the complainant has failed to establish her financial capacity to advance such a large sum, as no income tax returns or financial records have been produced.
44. Ld. Counsel has also emphasized that the complainant admitted during cross-examination that the dealings were conducted by her husband, who was not examined as a witness. Non- examination of this material witness raises an adverse inference against the complainant.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL REASONING Legal Jurisprudence
45. So far so good. Having considered all the submissions, it is apposite to have a quick glance at relevant position of law. Section 138 of the Act provides as under:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. --
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 16 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:21:10 +0530 that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--(a)the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation. --For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
46. It is a well-established principle of law that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) provides for two critical presumptions i.e., under Section 118 and the other under Section
139.
47. Section 118 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, until proven otherwise, that every negotiable instrument has been made or drawn for consideration. This presumption places the onus on the party challenging the instrument to disprove this presumption of consideration.
48. Section 139 of the Act further provides that, unless proven otherwise, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of, in whole or in part, any debt or liability. This creates a strong legal presumption in favor of the complainant, especially in cases involving dishonored cheques.
Points for Determination
49. The following points arise for consideration:-
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 17 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:21:16 +0530
1. Whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act operate in favour of the complainant?
2. Whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability?
3. Whether the accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions?
Analysis Statutory Presumptions and Dispute Regarding Signatures
50. Under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, statutory presumptions operate in favour of the holder of the cheque that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the present case, the accused has admitted that the cheque leaf pertains to his bank account and that the particulars appearing on the cheque were filled by his accountant. The accused further stated that the cheque in question had been handed over, though allegedly unsigned, to Mr. Rajiv Kukreti, stated to be the accountant of the complainant, as security towards the investment transaction. However, the accused denied his signatures on the cheque.
51. At the stage of admission and denial, the accused specifically stated that he did not dispute the return memo and the legal demand notice. The return memo clearly records the reason for dishonour as "Funds Insufficient".
52. In such circumstances, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act can be said to have arisen despite the denial of signatures by the accused.
53. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
Section 118 -- Presumptions as to negotiable instruments Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 18 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:21:24 +0530
(a) of consideration.--that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date.--that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance.--that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer.--that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;
(e) as to order of indorsements.--that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
(f) as to stamp.--that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course.--that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
Section 139 -- Presumption in favour of holder It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
54. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that Section 118 NI Act raises a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was so accepted or transferred for consideration. It was further argued that the complainant, being the holder of the cheque, is entitled to the presumption of being a holder in due course.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 19 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:21:29 +0530
55. It is an admitted fact that the cheque in question was dishonoured on the ground of "Funds Insufficient" and not on account of "signature differs" or any mismatch of signatures. It is equally admitted that the return memo has not been disputed by the accused. Consequently, the genuineness of the return memo and the reason recorded therein for dishonour stand admitted.
56. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act essentially governs the burden of proof. Once the presumption arises, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the same on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Conversely, if the presumption does not arise, the burden remains upon the complainant to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the crucial issue is whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the foundational facts necessary for raising the statutory presumptions stand established.
57. In the present matter, the accused has admitted that the cheque leaf belongs to his account, that the particulars of the cheque were filled by his accountant, and that the cheque had been handed over in connection with the transaction in question. Therefore, handing over of the cheque is admitted. The dishonour of the cheque on account of insufficiency of funds is also admitted. The only dispute raised by the accused pertains to the signatures appearing on the cheque.
58. The question therefore is whether mere denial of signatures, in the facts of the present case, is sufficient to prevent the statutory presumptions from arising.
59. In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer has to be in the negative. Firstly, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and not due to any mismatch of signatures. Had the signatures materially differed from the specimen signatures available with the bank, the ordinary course would have been dishonour on the ground of " signature differs" or a similar endorsement. The fact that the cheque was processed through the banking channel and returned only for insufficiency of funds assumes significance.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 20 of 28
Digitally signed
by VANSHIKA
MEHTA
VANSHIKA
Date:
MEHTA 2026.05.02
16:21:35
+0530
60. Secondly, despite taking the plea that the cheque did not bear his signatures, the accused failed to confront any material witness on this aspect. During cross-examination of CW-2, the bank witness from ICICI Bank, no question whatsoever was put regarding discrepancy in signatures. Likewise, not even a suggestion was put to CW-1 regarding alleged forgery or fabrication of signatures.
61. Most importantly, CW-3, the bank witness from Andhra Bank, where the accused maintained the account in question, was also not confronted regarding the alleged mismatch of signatures. Although the accused may contend that the witness did not personally deal with the account, the accused nevertheless had ample opportunity to summon the specimen signature records from the bank or to lead defence evidence by examining an appropriate bank official or handwriting expert. No such effort was made.
62. Even during his examination-in-chief, the accused merely stated that he had handed over an unsigned cheque to the complainant. Significantly, he nowhere stated that his signatures had been forged by any particular person, nor did he depose that he had lodged any complaint or initiated any proceedings alleging fabrication or misuse of the cheque.
63. The accused has placed reliance upon the judgment in Manoj Kumar Panchal v. Mahender Kumar Panchal, 2025 (CRL.L.P. 367/2018), wherein the accused was acquitted after the FSL report substantiated that he was not the signatory to the cheque in question. In the said case, the accused had actively pursued an application seeking expert examination and the handwriting expert conclusively opined that the signatures appearing on the cheque were not those of the accused. It was specifically observed therein that the FSL report substantiated the contention of the accused that he was not the signatory to the cheque.
64. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the accused neither sought expert examination nor confronted the bank witnesses regarding the alleged mismatch of signatures. No defence evidence whatsoever was led to probabilise the plea that the cheque did not bear his signatures.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 21 of 28
Digitally
signed by
VANSHIKA
VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02
16:21:40
+0530
65. On the contrary, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr. , (2024) 4 SCC 453, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the accused intended to dispute the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the cheque, it was incumbent upon him to procure certified copies of specimen signatures from the bank, confront the concerned bank officials, or lead appropriate defence evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the Court cannot come to the aid of the accused in collecting defence evidence and that the rebuttable presumptions under the NI Act continue to operate in favour of the complainant unless effectively rebutted by cogent evidence.
66. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yasir @ Yasir Zaidi v. Man Mohan Arora , 2026, reiterated that where no question regarding authenticity of signatures was put to the bank witness, the accused cannot subsequently contend that the signatures were not proved. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that where the cheque is dishonoured for " Insufficient Funds" and not on account of signature mismatch, reference to a handwriting expert may not even be warranted. Reliance was placed therein upon S. Minz v. Madhu Bala Gupta 2012 SCC Online Del 2936 and L.C. Goyal v. Suresh Joshi (1999) 3 SCC 376.
67. Accordingly, in view of the admitted handing over of the cheque, the admission that the cheque particulars were filled by the accused's accountant, the absence of any dispute regarding the return memo, the dishonour of the cheque on the ground of " Funds Insufficient", the failure of the accused to confront the bank witnesses regarding signatures, and failure to seek expert examination or lead any defence evidence regarding forgery or fabrication, this Court is of the considered opinion that the foundational facts necessary for raising the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act stand duly established. Mere bald denial of signatures, unsupported by any substantive evidence, is insufficient to rebut or prevent the operation of the statutory presumptions under the NI Act.
Legally enforceable debt or liability CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 22 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:21:44 +0530
68. The case of the complainant is that the accused, being a property broker, induced her to invest in a real estate project namely "Spaze Palazzo", Sector-69, Gurugram. Acting upon such inducement, the complainant transferred Rs.70,00,000/- to the accused on 02.11.2018 from her personal bank account. It is alleged that despite receipt of the entire consideration, the accused neither allotted the property nor executed any document in favour of the complainant. Upon repeated demands, the accused admitted his liability and issued multiple cheques, including the cheque in question for Rs.70,00,000/- towards repayment of the principal amount.
69. During the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, the accused stated that there existed business dealings in the nature of investment transactions between him and the husband of the complainant. He further stated that the cheque in question had been handed over unsigned to Mr. Rajiv Kukreti, the accountant of the complainant, as security towards the said investment transaction. The accused also claimed that he had no legally enforceable liability towards the complainant and that the present complaint had been falsely instituted against him.
70. At the stage of recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused stated that the complainant had admitted during her cross-examination that the transaction was composite in nature and had been dealt with by Mr. Sarish Saxena on behalf of Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
71. The defence of the accused is that the transaction in question was a composite deal and that the amount received from the complainant stood forfeited. During his examination-in-chief, the accused stated that the complainant had no concern with the transaction and that he had never executed any agreement with her. He further stated that the deal amount was subsequently reduced from Rs. 6.45 crores to Rs. 4.45 crores, which was to be paid by Sh. Sarish Saxena within three months. However, according to the accused, the said payment was not made within the stipulated period and was delayed on one pretext or another, thereby causing him substantial financial loss. He further stated that, due to non-payment of the balance amount, the deal was cancelled and the amount already paid was forfeited, which was duly communicated through email.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 23 of 28
Digitally signed
by VANSHIKA
MEHTA
VANSHIKA
Date:
MEHTA 2026.05.02
16:22:00
+0530
72. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the stand taken by the accused is inherently contradictory. Either the accused received an amount from the complainant, which he now seeks to forfeit, or he did not receive any amount from the complainant at all. If no amount was received from the complainant, the question of forfeiture does not arise in the first place.
73 The entire defence of the accused is thus misplaced and misconceived. On one hand, the accused has pleaded that he never received any amount from the complainant; on the other hand, he has relied upon email Ex. CW1/D1 to contend that the amount paid in respect of the transaction stood forfeited on account of non-payment of the balance consideration. Such mutually destructive pleas cannot stand together. The accused cannot simultaneously deny receipt of any amount from the complainant and yet claim a right to forfeit the very same amount.
74. The crucial issue, therefore, is whether a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused.
75. Attention of this Court has been drawn to an apparent discrepancy between the bank statement and the cheque amount. While the bank statement reflects a transfer of Rs. 69,30,000/-, the cheque amount is Rs. 70,00,000/-. During his cross-examination, the accused stated that he could not confirm receipt of Rs. 69,30,000/- on 02.11.2018 without checking his bank records and further denied that Rs. 70,000/- had been deposited towards TDS in his account. However, the following admissions made during his cross-examination assume significance:-
Q. I put it to you that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,42,50,000/-, an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was paid by the complainant? A. It is incorrect.
Q. I put it to you that you have yourself admitted receiving an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- from the complainant in your complaint dated 04.07.2020?
At this stage, the witness was shown page 582 of Ex. DW1/10. The complaint dated 04.07.2020 was exhibited as Ex. DW1/13.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 24 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA VANSHIKA MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02 16:22:04 +0530 Q. Is it correct that this complaint was filed by you? A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that in the said complaint you have mentioned Rs. 70 lakhs received by you from the complainant on 02.11.2018?
A. It is correct. Vol. This amount has come from the Directors of Value Line for a composite transaction.
76. Further, in her cross-examination, CW-1 admitted that she is one of the Directors of M/s Value Line Interiors Pvt. Ltd. along with her husband. Thus, the accused has unequivocally admitted receipt of Rs. 70,00,000/- from the Directors of the said company and was fully aware that the complainant herself was one of its Directors. Accordingly, the receipt of Rs. 70,00,000/- from the complainant stands clearly admitted.
77. Moreover, even otherwise, the accused candidly admitted during his cross-examination as under:-
"It is correct that I had admitted receiving an amount of Rs. 3,42,50,000/- from the plaintiffs in the said suit on the basis of which the aforesaid judgment and decree has been passed for the aforesaid amount. It is correct that the complainant is also a plaintiff in the said suit."
78. A perusal of Ex. DW1/14 further reveals that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in CS (Comm.) No. 179/2023, observed as under:-
"13. At the outset, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the complaint dated 4th July, 2020, filed on behalf of the defendants to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, wherein the defendants have clearly admitted receipt of a sum of Rs. 3,42,50,000/- from the plaintiffs through banking channels. The relevant paragraph from the said complaint is reproduced below:
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 25 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:22:09 +0530 ******************************************************************** ********** Date Bank Amount Arti 02.11.2018 ICICI Bank Rs. 70,00,000/-
79. In view of the aforesaid material, the receipt of Rs. 70,00,000/- from the complainant stands conclusively established and admitted.
80. The accused has further taken the plea that the aforesaid amount was liable to be forfeited and has heavily relied upon Ex. CW1/D1 in support thereof. However, during his cross- examination, the accused admitted Ex. DW1/14 and stated:-
"It is correct that I had admitted receiving an amount of Rs. 3,42,50,000/- from the plaintiffs in the said suit, on the basis of which the aforesaid judgment and decree has been passed for the aforesaid amount. It is correct that the complainant is also a plaintiff in the said suit."
81. A perusal of Ex. DW1/14 reveals that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi categorically observed as under:-
"16. Even in the course of arguments today, the counsel for the defendants has not disputed the aforesaid amount being received by the defendants.
17. The defence taken by the defendants is that the defendants have forfeited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,42,50,000/-, as the plaintiffs did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,02,50,000/-. However, nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court that authorised the defendants to forfeit the aforesaid amount. There is no CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 26 of 28 Digitally signed by VANSHIKA MEHTA VANSHIKA Date: MEHTA 2026.05.02 16:22:15 +0530 written agreement between the parties in terms of which the defendants could have forfeited the amount.
18. In this regard, the plaintiffs have correctly placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Swaranjit Singh Sayal v. M.K. Jain in CS(OS) 3980/2014, wherein a similar defence taken by the defendant in the said case has been rejected."
82. In view of the aforesaid findings, the plea of the accused regarding forfeiture of the amount already stands adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The issue having attained finality between the parties, the principle of res judicata squarely applies, and the accused cannot be permitted to reagitate the same defence in the present proceedings.
83. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the receipt of the amount by the accused stands admitted. Further, the defence of the accused that he was authorised to forfeit the said amount remains wholly unsubstantiated and has not been proved on record. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully established the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused.
Rebuttal of Presumption
84. The primary defence taken by the accused is that the cheque in question was handed over unsigned and has subsequently been misused by the complainant. However, the said defence is wholly unsubstantiated and does not find support from any credible or cogent evidence on record.
85. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that no suggestion whatsoever regarding forgery, fabrication, or misuse of signatures was put either to CW-1 or to the concerned bank witnesses during the course of their cross-examination. Had the accused genuinely disputed the execution or authenticity of the cheque, appropriate suggestions challenging the signatures on the cheque ought to have been put to the witnesses. The complete absence of any such suggestion materially weakens the defence sought to be raised by the accused.
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 27 of 28
Digitally signed
by VANSHIKA
VANSHIKA MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
2026.05.02
16:22:23 +0530
86. Further, despite disputing the signatures on the cheque, the accused admittedly did not move any application seeking examination of the cheque by a handwriting or forensic expert. No effort was made by the accused to have the signatures scientifically compared or examined. Such omission assumes significance, particularly when the accused seeks to challenge the very execution of the cheque. The conduct of the accused in not taking any steps for expert examination clearly gives rise to an adverse inference against him.
87. It is also noteworthy that the defence raised by the accused has not remained consistent throughout the proceedings. At one stage, the accused claimed that the cheque was issued as security in relation to investment transactions, whereas at another stage, he sought to contend that the transaction was composite in nature and that the amount stood forfeited.
88. The accused has thus taken mutually inconsistent stands, which materially erode the credibility of his defence. Hence, the accused has not been able to raise any probable defence.
ORDER
89. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully established his case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions. Accordingly, the accused Mr. Mohit Jain is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02.05.2026.
Present judgment consists of 28 pages and each page bears my initials. VANSHIKA by
Digitally signed
VANSHIKA
MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:22:31 +0530
(Ms. VANSHIKA MEHTA)
JMFC (NI ACT) -04
PHC/ New Delhi/02.05.2026
CC No. 4899/2020 Arti Saxena Vs. Mohit Jain Page no. 28 of 28