Delhi District Court
Sunder Sharma vs Deepika And Ors on 15 September, 2025
DLST020146942018
IN THE COURT OF SH. NITIN SHAH, JMFC-05, N.I. ACT,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CC No. : 6497/2018
U/s : 138 N. I. Act
PS : Fatehpur Beri
Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika
JUDGMENT
1. CC No. : 6497
2. Date of institution of the case : 10.05.2018
3. Name of complainant : Sunder Sharma
Sh. Dulli Chand
R/o H. No. 86, MG Road,
Ghitorni, New Delhi.
4. Name of accused, parentage
and address : Deepika
d/o Sh. Tek Chand Gautam
R/o 470/7, Subhash Nagar,
Gurugram, Haryana
5. Offence complained of : 138 N. I. Act
6. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Conviction
8. Date on which order was : 25.08.2025
reserved
9. Date of pronouncement : 15.09.2025
THE CONVICT HAS THE RIGHT TO AVAIL FREE LEGAL AID AS PER ENTITLEMENT IN ORDER TO PURSUE REMEDY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT/APPROPRIATE FORUM OF LAW. Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN Date:
SHAH SHAH 2025.09.15 16:31:32 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 1 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 THE CONVICT MAY CONTACT THE FOLLOWING :
O/o Ld. Secretary, DLSA-South, Room No. 309, 3rd Floor, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi. Contact No. 011-29562440, [email protected] FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose off the present complaint case instituted by the Complainant invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(as in after referred to as NI Act).
2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint case, as per the complainant, may be summarized as hereafter: That complainant is engaged in the business of catering and tent house and accused and father of accused (not summoned) are known to complainant since 2015 as they run business of Balaji caterers in Gurugram, Haryana. That accused approached the complainant in the month of January 2018 to get catering and tent house services in Sultanpur, Delhi on 24.02.2018. That the complainant accepted the offer to provide catering and tent house items for one day to the accused for the price of Rs. 2 lacs. That accused were mutually agreed with the complainant to pay Rs. 2 lacs to the complainant for catering services and tent house items and accused issued a cheque bearing no.
755263 dt. 26.02.2018 drawn on Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Gurugram Branch, (hereinafter referred as cheque in question) in favour of the complainant. That on request and demand of accused, complainant arranged all the items and provided services to accused on 24.02.2018. That on the assurance of accused, complainant Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH SHAH Date:
2025.09.15 16:31:39 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 2 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 presented the said cheque in question for encashment, same was returned unpaid with remarks "insufficient funds". That complainant contacted the accused and asked for payment but accused denied his request. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 26.03.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the amount of the aforesaid cheque within the stipulated period but the accused did not make the payment within the statutory period.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
3. The complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon following evidences:-
a) Cheque in question Ex. CW-1
b) Return memo Ex. CW-2
c) Legal demand notice dt. 27.03.2018 Ex. CW-3
d) Postal receipts Ex. CW-4
e) Tracking reports Ex. CW-5
f) Evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A
g) Copy of bank statement Mark-CW1/A
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, only accused no. 1 Deepika was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and notice under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) was served upon accused on 07.04.2022 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused took the defence that she does not Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN Date:
SHAH SHAH 2025.09.15 16:31:44 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 3 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 know the complainant and her father handles her account. She further deposed that her father gave the cheques to the complainant. She further deposed that she never deposited more than Rs. 10,000/- in her bank account. She further deposed that her father has full knowledge of her account and she has been falsely trapped in this case.
5. Thereafter, on oral request, accused was granted opportunity to cross examine the complainant as well as his witnesses, if any, under Section 145 (2) of NI Act vide order dt. 07.04.2022.
6. The complainant has only examined himself as CW-1. In the post summoning evidence, the complainant (CW1) has adopted his pre-summoning evidence. The complainant was examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused. CE was closed vide order dated 21.07.2022.
7. Accused was, thereafter, examined U/s 281 r/w Sec 313 Criminal Procedure code, 1872 on 10.03.2023 wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to her. The accused took defence that she has no liability towards the cheque in question.
8. Accused has led following oral and documentary evidences to raise probable defence :
i) Accused herself DW-1
ii) Sh. Jai Narayan Gupta, Manager of Sarva DW-2
Haryana Gramin Bank
Digitally signed
NITIN by NITIN SHAH
Date:
SHAH 2025.09.15
CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah)
16:31:50 +0530
Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 4 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South
DLST020146942018
a) Statement of account of accused Ex.
DW1/2.
b) Account opening form of accused Ex.
DW1/3.
ii) Sh. Tek Chand (father of accused) DW-3
The defence evidence was closed vide order dt. 04.07.2025 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire evidence led by the parties and the material available on record.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. During the course of final arguments, complainant argued that all the essential ingredients of section 138 NI Act are fulfilled and there exists enforceable liability towards the complainant on behalf of the accused as the accused has failed to rebut the presumption of law raised against her. He further argued that as per tracking report legal notice is duly served upon the accused. He further submitted that accused was also doing business with her father, therefore, she had issued cheque in question to the complainant. Father of the accused has himself deposed that his firm is not registered and all the agreements in catering business was on oral agreement basis. The accused has failed to raise any probable defence. Thus, it is prayed that the accused be convicted of the offence.
Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH SHAH Date:
2025.09.15 16:31:55 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 5 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the offence is not made out as the accused has no liability to pay the cheque amount as the accused was not involved in catering business with her father. Further, documents as regards account of the accused was with her father, and she has no knowledge as to whom her father had given her cheques. The complainant did not have any knowledge of the accused. It is further contended that the complainant has not specified as to catering work as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, it has been argued that father of the accused has stated in his examination that he knew only Sanjay Sharma and had no dealing with present complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant has deposed that he did not take any advance but record shows that cheque in question has been drawn one day before the alleged catering work.
Therefore, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted of the offence.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence: -
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.
Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH SHAH Date:
2025.09.15 16:32:07 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 6 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act
13. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co- extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
PROVING OF INGREDIENTS
14. Notably, there is no dispute qua the proof of first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex.CW1/H which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It Digitally signed NITIN by NITIN SHAH Date: SHAH 2025.09.15 16:32:12 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 7 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo Ex. CW1/J which has also not been disputed.
15. With regard to the proving of fourth ingredient i.e. the service of legal demand notice Ex. CW1/K shows that notice was served upon the accused, and the accused has stated that legal notice was not served upon her address, rather on the address of her parents. It is pertinent to mention that the accused in her examination-in-chief has deposed that she used to visit her parents' house occasionally, and she got to know about the present matter when summons was by her mother in the year 2019. Hence, it can be presumed that when the legal notice was delivered at her parents' address, she was informed of the same in a similar manner. Moreover, she no evidence has been adduced by the accused to disprove the same. Further, in view of the presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Ex.CW1/K & Ex.CW1/L (legal notice and postal receipt) alongwith the ratio laid down in the case of "C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Mohd. & Anr 2007 AIR SCW 3578
16. Even otherwise, law expects a person pleading non-receipt of any demand notice to prove his bona fide by making the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receiving court summons. This is crystallized by C.C Alavi Haji (supra) "17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Crimi- nal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a noticeDigitally signed NITIN by NITIN SHAH Date:
SHAH 2025.09.15
16:32:17 +0530
CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah)
Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 8 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South
DLST020146942018
before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of re- ceipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, can- not obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and section 114 of the Evidence Act."
17. In the case at hand, despite issuance of summons and appearance of accused before the court, accused has failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant and thus is precluded from raising the plea of non-service of de- mand notice. Thus, it is proved that the legal notice was sent to accused within thirty days of receipt of intimation of dishonor of cheque in issue, I am of the considered opinion that the fourth ingredient of the offence stands proved.
18. The fifth ingredient as such the same is deemed to be proved that no payment has been made after issuance of legal demand notice.
RAISING OF PRESUMPTION
19. The accused has not admitted the signature on the cheque in question in her notice u/s 251 r/w 294 CrPC and also denied the same in her Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH SHAH Date:
2025.09.15 16:32:22 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 9 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 statement u/s 313 CrPC. Further, the accused (as DW-1) in her examination-in- chief reiterated as regards denial of signature on the cheque in question.
20. It is pertinent to note that the signatures made by the accused in her notice u/s 251 CrPC, and in her statement u/s 313 CrPC, as well as in her deposition before the court, are different from the signatures appearing on the cheque in question. Furthermore, on 21.07.2022, this court, in exercise of its power u/s 311A CrPC, obtained the specimen signatures of the accused, which matches with the signatures made by her during the course of the present proceedings. However, these specimen signatures, too, are different from those appearing on the cheque in question.
21. It is worth noting that the accused had examined the manager of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank as DW-2 in her defence. He produced and proved the account opening form of the accused as Ex. DW-1/3, which the accused did not dispute. What is rather surprising and noteworthy that the signatures on the account opening form Ex. DW1/3 and the annexed documents, namely the PAN card and Aadhar card, were compared by exercising powers u/s 73 Indian Evidence Act, it appears that the signature available with the bank and those made on the cheque are identical.
22. Furthermore, as per the cheque return memo dated 28.02.2018, the reason for the cheque is recorded as "funds insufficient". However, the cheque in question was not returned on the ground of "signature differ" from specimen recorded with the bank. In addition, section 118(e) of the NI Act provides Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN Date:
SHAH SHAH 2025.09.15 16:32:26 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 10 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 presumption regarding indorsements made on the negotiable instrument being in order in which they appear thereupon. Same can be rebutted by the accused by leading evidence. However, no such evidence has been produced. In this regard reliance can be placed upon Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2024 INSC 63.
23. Thus, it is proved that signature on the cheque in question is of accused only.
24. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once signature on the cheque in question is admitted/proved to be of the accused, certain presumptions are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act laying down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
25. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH SHAH Date:
2025.09.15 16:32:32 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 11 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 16, Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197.
26. Therefore, in the instant case, since it is proved that signature on the cheque in question was of the accused, the aforementioned statutory presumptions would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque has been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE QUA SECOND INGREDIENT (EXISTENCE OF LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT/LIABILITY)
27. The presumptions contemplated in the NI Act are rebuttable presumptions and once the same are raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"25.1. 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. 25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH Date:
SHAH 2025.09.15 16:32:37 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) +0530 Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 12 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely."
Therefore, the accused can rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act either by cross-examination of complainant and complainant witnesses or by leading his defence evidence or both.
28. In the instant case, the accused has raised the defence that her father runs the catering business, manages her bank account, and issued the cheque in question to the Sanjay Sharma, asserting that she has no involvement in the matter. Thus, she does not have any legal liability towards the complainant.
29. In order to substantiate her defence, the accused appeared in the witness box as DW-1. She deposed that she had no involvement whatsoever in the catering business, which, according to her, was solely managed and operated by her father. She categorically stated that she had never acted as a partner or associate in the said business since its inception and was not concerned with its operations in any capacity.
30. She further stated that her bank account and related documents, including cheque books, were always in the possession of her father, as she used to keep such documents at her paternal home. She asserted that she maintained a nominal balance of approximately ₹10,000 in the said account and had entrusted complete control over it to her father. She denied having issued or signed the Digitally signed NITIN by NITIN SHAH Date: SHAH 2025.09.15 16:32:42 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 13 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 cheque in question and claimed to have no knowledge of the alleged transaction or any acquaintance with the complainant.
According to her deposition, she only came to know about the matter later, upon which she confronted her father. At that time, he admitted to having issued the cheque in question to the complainant and assured her that he would take full responsibility for the matter and resolve it. However, thereafter, her father allegedly became untraceable and ceased all communication with the family.
31. To corroborate her version, the accused examined her father as DW-3. He deposed that he had obtained a catering contract worth ₹13 lakhs from one Mr. Khatter of Ghana village, out of which ₹6 lakhs were received in cash. He stated that he subcontracted work worth ₹3 lakhs to the complainant, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, and paid him ₹1.3 lakhs in cash. When the complainant failed to complete the assigned work, the client withheld ₹8.5 lakhs of the remaining payment.
32. DW-3 further stated that when Sanjay Sharma demanded the balance amount, he informed him that he did not have sufficient funds at the time. Under pressure, he handed over two cheques belonging to his daughter (the accused), which he had signed himself, without her knowledge or consent. He categorically admitted that the accused had no connection with the transaction and was unaware of the cheques being handed over. He also acknowledged that the accused was married and residing with her in-laws during the relevant time. He took full responsibility for issuing the cheque and the entire dealing with the complainant.
Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN Date:
SHAH SHAH 2025.09.15 16:32:56 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 14 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018
33. The learned counsel for the accused argued that any business dealing, if at all, was between DW-3 and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, who is stated to be the brother of the complainant, and not with the complainant himself. It was also contended that the cheque was handed over to Sanjay Sharma, not to the complainant. However, the Court finds this submission unsupported by substantive evidence on record.
34. Notably, none of the defence witnesses have deposed that the cheque in question was misused or presented without authority. Furthermore, no such suggestion was ever put to the complainant during cross-examination. This omission casts doubt on the veracity of the accused's defence. The bald assertion that the transaction was between DW-3 and the complainant's brother, without any corroborative material, cannot be given much weight.
35. Moreover, the accused's signature on the cheque has been admitted and stands conclusively proved. This fact militates against her claim of non- involvement and supports the inference that she had knowledge of and connection with the transaction. DW-3's admission of his own role, coupled with the presence of the accused's signature on the cheque, lends credence to the complainant's version that the accused was actively involved in the dealings.
36. While the accused claimed that her bank account was solely operated by her father, the record suggests otherwise. The account opening form (Ex. DW-
Digitally signed NITIN by NITIN SHAH Date: SHAH 2025.09.15 16:33:01 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 15 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018
1/3) bears the mobile number of her husband, not her father. It is also an admitted fact that the account was opened by the accused herself, with no indication of her father's authority. Further, the accused claimed that her account never had more than ₹10,000, a statement inconsistent with her claim of having no knowledge of account operations. These inconsistencies cumulatively discredit her defence and indicate that she maintained active control over the account and the cheque in question.
37. In cross-examination, the complainant reiterated the version stated in the complaint. No significant contradiction could be elicited from his testimony. It was contended by the defence that the complainant did not specify the exact nature, scope, or particulars of the catering assignment. However, the accused's own counsel did not put any question to the complainant on this aspect during cross-examination, nor were any adverse suggestions made.
38. The defence also argued that the absence of a written agreement for the catering assignment raises doubts. However, DW-3 himself, in his cross- examination, admitted that such assignments in the catering business were typically carried out on an oral understanding and no written agreement was executed.
39. It was also submitted that the complainant admitted during his cross- examination that he did not take any advance due to his friendly relationship with the accused and her father. The cheque is dated 23.02.2018, whereas the Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN Date:
SHAH SHAH 2025.09.15 16:33:06 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) +0530 Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 16 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018 complainant has stated that the catering event occurred on 24.02.2018. However, this discrepancy of one day is not material enough to discredit the complainant's overall version, especially since his deposition was recorded on 21.07.2022--more than four years after the event. Such a minor variance may be attributed to lapse of memory and does not materially affect the substance of the prosecution case.
40. Hence, in the light of above discussions and the authorities cited in the aforegoing para(s), the accused has failed in establishing a probable defence on standard of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption under section 118 and 139 NI Act. The accused have, thereby, failed to prove that the cheque was not given in discharge of existing legal debt or liability. Thus, the second ingredient to the offence under section 138 of NI Act stands proved.
CONCLUSION:
41. In the result of the analysis of the present case, the accused Deepika is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
42. This judgment contains 18 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
43. Let a copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
44. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, South, Saket forthwith. Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH SHAH Date:
2025.09.15 16:33:11 +0530 CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah) Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 17 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South DLST020146942018
45. The convict has a right to suspension of sentence as per the statutory period and to prefer an appeal against the present judgment. She is also at liberty to avail the services of District Legal Services Authority, South as per entitlement in case she cannot afford the professional fee of an advocate. The contact details of the authority have been mentioned on the cover note of this judgment.
Digitally signed by NITIN NITIN SHAH Date:
SHAH 2025.09.15
16:33:18
+0530
Announced in the open Court (NITIN SHAH)
on 15.09.2025 JMFC-05 (NI ACT) SOUTH/SAKET
NEW DELHI
CC No. 6497/18 (Nitin Shah)
Sunder Sharma vs. Deepika Page no 18 of 18 JMFC-05 (NI Act)/South