Delhi District Court
Sufal Jha vs Ranjana Nahar on 11 February, 2026
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS GIVEN TO THE
ACCUSED IN COMPLIANCE OF
SUHAS CHAKMA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WP (C)
1082/20
COVERSHEET TO THE COPY OF JUDGMENT
The convict has been informed that the convict may avail free legal
aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies. The following Authority
may be contacted for seeking appropriate guidance:
South District Legal Services Authority
Address: Utility Block, Ground Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New
Delhi
Phone Number: 9667992799; 011-29562440
Email id: [email protected]
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
16:16:55 +0530
(Signature of Presiding Officer)
Date: 11.02.2026
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, (NI
ACT)-04, SOUTH, SAKET, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Shiva Parashar, DJS
In the matter of :-
SUFAL JHA, DLST02-008057-2019
S/O Lt. Sh. Abhinandan Jha,
R/o C-1, 754A, Aya Nagar,
Phase IV, New Delhi-110047.
.... Complainant
VS.
RANJANA NAHAR,
W/o Sh. Tarun Nahar,
R/o Flat No. 201, 2nd Floor, Vardhaman Apartment,
Plot No. Z-6, Phase-V, Aya Nagar,
New Delhi- 110047.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sufal Jha
2. Name of Accused : Ranjana Nahar
Section 138 & 142 of Negotiable
3. Offence complained of or proved :
Instruments Act, 1881
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of Filing : 07.03.2019
6. Date of Reserving Order : 14.01.2026
7. Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026
8. Final Order : Conviction
Argued by :- Sh. Vijay Pratap Singh, Ld. LAC for the complainant.
Sh. Vivek Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 2 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
16:16:59 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed against the accused Ranjana Nahar
W/o Tarun Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). The substance of allegations and assertions
of the complainant, Sufal Jha, is that the accused took a friendly loan of Rs.
1,17,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen Thousand) in instalments during the
period 2017-2018. In order to discharge her liability, the accused had issued two
cheques bearing nos. 153598 and 153599 dated 25.11.2018 and 25.12.2018 for
an amount of Rs. 90,000/- (Ninty Thousand Rupees) and Rs. 27,000/- (Twenty
Seven Thousand Rupees) respectively drawn on Corporation Bank, Aya Nagar
Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "cheques in question"). The said
cheques, when presented, were returned unpaid vide return memo dated
18.01.2019 by the bank with remarks, "Funds Insufficient". The complainant
then issued demand notice dated 02.02.2019, through his counsel upon the
accused. Even after the receipt of the demand notice, the accused failed to pay
the cheques amount within the stipulated period and hence, the present
complaint.
2. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, she was
summoned to face trial vide order dated 04.05.2019 and after her appearance,
notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") was served upon her on 06.04.2021. In reply
to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. She
stated that she is signatory to the cheques but disputed the liability on account of
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 3 of 13
Digitally
signed by
SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
16:17:10
+0530
repayment and quantum of liability.
3. During the trial, the complainant has led the following oral and
documentary evidence against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable
doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE
CW 1 : Sufal Jha (Complainant)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.CW1/1 (OSR) : Copy of Aadhaar of CW1
Ex.CW1/2 (Colly) : Original cheques bearing nos. 153598 and 153599
Ex.CW1/3 : Return memo dated 18.01.2019
Ex.CW1/4 (Colly) : Legal demand notice dated 02.02.2019
Ex. CW1/A : Evidence by way of affidavit of CW1
4. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow
the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against her, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused accepted the dishonour of
cheques in question; however, she denied her liability.
Thereafter, accused had led the following evidence in her defence.
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW 1 : Ranjana Nahar (Accused)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. DW1/1(colly) : Pen drive along with transcript and certificate u/s 65B
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 4 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
16:17:15 +0530
ARGUMENTS-
5. The final arguments were heard in the matter. I have heard the ld.
counsels appearing for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to
the material appearing on record.
6. It has been argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that all the
ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that it
is proved from the material on record that the accused borrowed Rs. 1,17,000/-
from the complainant and issued the cheques drawn on her personal account to
honour the agreement of friendly loan. In addition, the accused has raised
disparate defences in her Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and in her statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As such, it is prayed that the accused be
punished for the said offence.
7. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the
complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. He
submits that the accused has no legally enforceable liability towards the
complainant as the complainant has failed to prove the loan transaction itself.
Further, the video recording Ex. DW1/1 (colly) proves that the accused had
already made a part payment to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for accused has
relied upon Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Vinay Mittal,
2010(2)RCR(Criminal)525, Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh
Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors., AIR2022SC4961 and Central Bank of India and
Ors. Vs. Saxons Farms and Ors., AIR 1999SC3607. As such, it is prayed that the
accused be acquitted.
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 5 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.11
16:17:20
+0530
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
8. 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 fulfil
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;
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.
9. 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.
10. The proof of first and third ingredient is not disputed. The
complainant has proved the original cheques, Ex. CW1/2 (Colly) which the
accused has not disputed as being drawn on her account. It is not disputed that
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 6 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.11
16:17:24
+0530
the cheques in question were presented within the validity period. The cheques
in question were returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/3 due to the
reason, "Funds Insufficient". As such, on the basis of the above, the first and
third ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act stands proved.
11. With regard to the fourth and fifth ingredient, the complainant has
proved on record legal notice, original postal receipt and tracking report Ex.
CW1/4 (Colly). The cheques in question were dishonoured vide return memo
Ex. CW1/3 dated 18.01.2019. The legal notice was addressed to the accused and
sent by the counsel for complainant is dated 02.02.2019. The receipt of legal
demand notice is denied by the accused in her statements recorded u/s 251 and
313 CrPC. The legal notice was sent upon the same address as noted by the
accused before the court in her bail bonds and also in all her statements recorded
before the Court. Moreover, the receipt of legal demand notice is admitted by
the accused in her cross-examination dated 24.01.2025 before the Court.
Further, proviso (f) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 entails a
presumption in regard the common course of business. In C.C. Alavi Haji vs.
Palapetty Muhammed and Ors., 2007(3)A C R2738(SC), it was observed:
"12. According to Section 114 of the Act, read with illustration
(f) thereunder, when it appears to the Court that the common
course of business renders it probable that a thing would happen,
the Court may draw presumption that the thing would have
happened, unless there are circumstances in a particular case to
show that the common course of business was not followed.
Thus, Section 114 enables the Court to presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being
had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and
public and private business in their relation to the facts of the
particular case. Consequently, the court can presume that the
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 7 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.11
16:17:34
+0530
common course of business has been followed in particular
cases. When applied to communications sent by post, Section
114 enables the Court to presume that in the common course of
natural events, the communication would have been delivered at
the address of the addressee. But the presumption that is raised
under Section 27 of the G.C. Act is a far stronger presumption.
Further, while Section 114 of Evidence Act refers to a general
presumption, Section 27 refers to a specific presumption."
Thus, the legal demand notice was sent upon the correct address of
the accused. Additionally, the accused has failed to bring any evidence to prove
the contrary as well. Therefore, it is proved that the legal notice was delivered to
the accused. No dispute was raised on this issue by the counsel for the accused
during arguments. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the
receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed. Therefore, the fourth and the fifth
ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
12. Now it remains to be ascertained if the second ingredient is proved
or not. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved
that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally
enforceable debt. In the present case, the signature of the accused on the cheques
in question is not denied. In the plea of accused recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C, the
accused has admitted being a signatory to the cheques in question. Signatures
were also admitted by the accused when her statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was recorded. Under the NI Act, once the accused admits his signatures
on the cheque, 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. The second presumption is
contained under Section 139 of NI Act which casts a reverse onus upon the
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 8 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.11
16:17:39
+0530
accused. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque
received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
13. It has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence
of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the
accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence on the standard of
preponderance of probabilities to prove that there was no legally enforceable
debt or other liability. In order 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 and
it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his
defence. In the present case, the contention raised by the ld. counsel for the
accused to rebut the presumption is discussed below.
14. ACCUSED HAS MADE PART PAYMENT TO THE COMPLAINANT.
14.1. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that it is proven from the
material on record that the accused had made the part payment of Rs. 25,000/- to
the complainant and accordingly, the liability of Rs. 1,17,000/- does not arise on
the date of presentation of cheques in question. However, the said argument is
liable to be rejected due to the following reasons:
14.2. Firstly, the accused has taken several contradictory stands in her
plea recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and in her other statements before the Court. In
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 9 of 13
Digitally
signed by
SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
16:17:44
+0530
the plea of accused u/s 251 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated, "I had borrowed
Rs75,000/- from the complainant which I had to pay back to the complainant
along with interest of Rs15,000/-." Whereas, in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.,
the accused has stated, "The money was taken on a chit and not as a loan. The
money has already been returned by me to the complainant in front of Mr. Arif
itself." In addition, the accused had also stated, "We three used to run a chit
wherein we used to take the money on turns." The accused had further improved
upon her statements in her examination in chief as, "I run a committee of 20
members in which complainant was also a member. I used to collect money in
the committee and pay monthly as per the bid. I used to give advance cheque to
those who succeeded in the bid, therefore, I gave 02 cheques to the complainant,
one is of Rs. 90,000/- and other one is of Rs. 27,000/-. I had paid Rs. 25,000/- to
the complainant by way of cash. I told him to bring the cheque of Rs. 27,000/-
then I will pay him Rs. 2000/- but instead of bringing the cheque, he deposited
the same in his Bank." Even further, during her cross-examination, the accused
has stated, "I had issued the aforesaid cheques as security to the complainant as
the complainant used to run a committee of which I was a member." As such,
the accused has improved upon her statements during the different stages of trial
and in doing so; she has contradicted her previous stance before the Court. The
accused has made several contradictory and mutually destructive statements
before the court upon the transaction of loan and chit fund; the payment of Rs.
90,000/- had never been mentioned prior to the defence evidence and she has
constantly changed the stance as to who used to run the committee.
14.3. Secondly, the accused has failed to bring any evidence of chit fund/
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 10 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
16:17:48 +0530
committee being run by her. In her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has
stated that she used to run a chit fund along with the complainant and one Arif,
however, Arif has not been brought before the court as a witness to prove the
transaction of chit fund and the relationship between the complainant and the
accused. Further, in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that
she and her daughter had visited the shop of the complainant to ask him to return
her cheques, however, the daughter of accused has also not been brought as a
witness before the court to testify in her support as well. Even otherwise, the
accused has not brought any other member of the chit fund before the court to
prove the transaction of chit fund between the parties.
14.4. Thirdly, the accused had failed to bring on record the proof of part
or complete payment to the complainant. During her testimony, the accused has
submitted that she made a part payment of Rs. 25,000/- in cash to the
complainant and thereafter, made another payment of Rs. 90,000/- to the
complainant in front of one Travinder Singh. However, the accused has neither
placed on record any proof of alleged payments to the complainant nor the
accused has brought the said Travinder Singh before the Court.
In support of her defence, the accused has brought on record one
video recording along with transcript and certificate Ex.DW1/1 (Colly).
However, the said video recording and its transcript does not state a clear
admission of the complainant of having received Rs. 25,000/- in connection with
the present factual matrix. Further, during his cross-examination, the
complainant has specifically denied the receipt of any payment by the accused.
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 11 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.11
16:17:53
+0530
Additionally, the complainant had never been confronted with the video
recording and transcript Ex. DW1/1 (colly) during the evidence. Moreover, the
accused has failed to show that the conversation in Ex. DW1/1 (colly) was
related to the facts of the present case and the friendly loan thereof.
Accordingly, the reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for accused upon Alliance
Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Vinay Mittal, Dashrathbhai
Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors., and Central Bank of
India and Ors. Vs. Saxons Farms and Ors. is misconceived since the part
payment is not proved by the accused before the court.
14.5. The accused has taken several contradictory stands throughout the
trial which has shaken the credit of her evidence. Accordingly, in view of the
above discussion, the stance of the accused in her deposition before this court is
not trustworthy. The accused has taken contradictory stands, she has failed to
raise doubts upon the evidence of complainant and the accused has further failed
to bring any evidence whatsoever in support of her defence. Neither the accused
has proved a transaction of chit fund/committee between the parties nor has she
proved a part payment by her. The accused has failed to prove that the cheque
amount was not outstanding upon her. Accused has also failed to rebut the
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act. Therefore, it stands proved
that the accused is liable to make the payment of cheque amount to the
complainant.
15. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs,
the inevitable conclusion is that the accused has failed to prove that there was no
CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 12 of 13
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.11
16:18:00
+0530
legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the second ingredient is also proved in the
present case.
CONCLUSION -
16. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been
successful in establishing his case. The signature on the cheque is admitted by
the accused and the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act is
raised against the accused. The accused has miserably failed to rebut the said
presumption by raising a probable defence.
17. As such, the complainant has proved the offence beyond reasonable
doubt and the accused has failed to raise a probable defence. Resultantly, the
complaint of the complainant is allowed and the accused Ranjana Nahar w/o
Tarun Kumar is hereby convicted of the offence of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Let the convict be heard separately on
quantum of sentence. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the
convict.
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
ORDER:- CONVICTED SHIVA
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.11
Pronounced in open court on 11.02.2026. 16:18:05 +0530 (Shiva Parashar) JMFC (NI Act)-04, South Saket, New Delhi Note: This judgment contains 13 pages and each page has been signed by me CT Cases 2965/2019 Sufal Jha vs. Ranjana Nahar Page 13 of 13