Delhi District Court
Ranjeet Raj Chopra vs Nitin Sodha on 19 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANGI MANGLA,
JMFC (NI Act) - 05
WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. : DLWT020152192020
CT. CASE NO. : 165/2020
CASE TITLE : Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs.
Nitin Sodha
19.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Complaint Case number : 165/2020
2. Name of the complainant : Ranjeet Raj Chopra S/o Sh. Narinder Raj Chopra R/o Flat No. 195-B, Ekta Enclave, Piragarhi, Sunder Vihar, Delhi-110087
3. Name and address of the : Mr. Nitin Sodha accused S/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o N-387, J.J. Colony, Sawada, Delhi-110081 Mob. no.- 8527021987
4. Offence complained of or : Under Section 138 of the proved Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final Order : CONVICTION Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:34:51 +0530
7. Date of Institution : 17.12.2020
8. Date of pronouncement : 19.01.2026 JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter, Ct. Cases No.165/2020 filed by complainant against the dishonor of 4 cheques bearing No. 606090 dated 23.10.2020 , 606089 dated 25.10.2020, 606087 dated 28.10.2020, 606088 dated 31.10.2020 each for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Jawalaheri Village, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. (henceforth, the cheque in question).
2. Briefly stated, the facts that the complainant and accused are well known to each other and share friendly relations since long. The accused approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 8 lacs for a period of 1 month on 20.09.2020 for meeting his urgent financial needs. Acceding to his request, the complainant advanced the amount in cash without interest on 23.09.2020 at his residence and accused issued 4 PDCs (cheques in question) in favor of the complainant in discharge of legal debt/ liability. On presentation, the cheques in question were returned unpaid with remarks "Funds insufficient" vide returning memo dated 03.11.2020.
3. Thereafter, complainant sent a Legal notice dated Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.19 16:34:55 +0530 05.11.2020 to the accused through registered post calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount. It is the case of the complainant that despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
5. Pre summoning evidence affidavit was filed and the cognizance was taken u/s 138 NI Act on 04.01.2021 and summons were issued to accused thereupon.
6. Notice was framed against the accused on 06.03.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, in consideration of no objection, the application u/s 145(2) NIA was allowed.
7. The complainant has examined himself as CW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. He has relied upon the documents : -
1. Original cheque bearing no.Ex.CW1/1
606090 Original cheque bearing no.
2. Ex.CW1/2606089 Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.19 16:34:58 +0530 Original cheque bearing no.
3. Ex.CW1/3 606087 Original cheque bearing no. 4. Ex.CW1/4 606088 5. Ex.CW1/5 to Ex. Original Return Memo dated CW1/8 03.11.2020 6. Ex .CW1/9 Legal notice dated 05.11.2020 7. Ex.CW1/10 Original Speed Post 8. Ex. CW1/11 Original Tracking report 9. Copy of email dated 11.11.2020 Ex. CW1/12 Copy of WhatsApp message 10. dated 11.11.2020 between Ex. CW1/13 complainant and accused 11. Ex. CW1/14 Certificate u/s 65 B IEA
8. CW1/complainant was examined in chief and cross examined in part on 24.01.2024 & discharged after examination on 31.01.2024. Closing CE. Matter was listed for SA.
9. The accused was examined and his statement was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.01.2024 after all the incriminating evidence and the documents on record were put to him. Accused Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.19 16:35:02 +0530 had chosen to lead evidence in his defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for DE.
10. DW1/Accused was examined in chief, cross examined in part on 08.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and discharged on 08.01.2026 after further examination.
Accused has relied upon following documents:-
1. Paytm Bank Statement from Ex.DW1/1 01.08.2020 to 31.08.2020
2. Ex.DW1/2 Paytm Bank Statement from 14.07.2020 to 13.08.2020 E-mail dated 15.10.2020
3. Ex. DW1/3 received from Cyber Cell of Paytm.
Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
11. Both the Counsels led their oral submissions in length and filed judgments in support of their case. Rebuttal submissions also taken from both the counsels. The submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the judgments relied on by the parties have been considered.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:06 +0530
12. To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following: -
i. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
ii. the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
iii. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
iv. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
v. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
vi. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
13. The accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question at every stage; from notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. to his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, presumption under section 118(a) and under section 139 of NI Act arises against the accused. Unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for a consideration and that the complainant received the cheques in question in discharge of a Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:10 +0530 debt/ liability from the accused. In order to rebut the presumptions, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that there was no liability for the amount of cheque in question.
(Reliance placed on Triyambak S. Hegde vs Sripad decided by 3 judge bench of Hon'ble SC on 23.09.2021 and Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418; Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4SCC; K Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC510; Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC16; 8 Kalamani Tex and Ors Vs. B Balasubramanian (2021) SCC online SC 75; J. Vasantha Kumar Vs. Vipyakuman Kumar AIR 2015 SC 2240; Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S.Borcar Crl. Appeal no.1755/2010 )
14. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused to raise a probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recoverable debt arisen in favor of the complainant. As held in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC441,""... facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving contrary".
It is now to be examined as to whether the accused has Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.19 16:35:14 +0530 brought any material on record dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
15. The accused has pleaded the defence that the cheques in question were never issued to the complainant and rather were handed over to Manoj Singh Bisht for security purpose as he used to receive payments on behalf of Manoj Singh Bisht from his clients and the same were transferred to the account of Divya Ayurved or other companies of Manoj Singh Bisht, or sometimes, even in the account of complainant as the complainant was manager. Accused has further pleaded defence that he acted merely as "intermediary" for the transfer of the payments received from the clients of Manoj Singh Bisht to the company's account as the payment could not be directly transferred. The accused has vehemently denied receipt of any friendly loan from the complainant. And has pleaded the defence of misuse of his cheques at the instance of Manoj Singh Bisht and complainant in connivance with each other. He has further pleaded that the said person Manoj Singh Bist and complainant harassed him and cheated on multiple people due to which he left the job under the employment of the said persons and his account with Paytm bank was blocked by Gujarat Cyber Cell due to suspicious activities of the said complainant and Manoj Singh Bisht. The accused has accordingly denied existence of legal liability towards the cheques in question in favor of the complainant.
Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:18 +0530
16. The accused has pleaded that he acted as "intermediary" for the transfer of the payments received from the clients to the company's account. He further stated Manoj Singh Bisht to be his boss. Firstly, no evidence in this regard has been led by the accused. No payslip or any other salary proof has been shown till date to show that the accused was working under the employment of Manoj Singh Bisht and if so, then in what capacity/designation. Secondly, further nothing has been disclosed till date as to on which date the accused joined in service under Manoj Singh Bisht and up till which date he worked before leaving the job. Thirdly, no proof has been furnished with respect to the fact that the complainant was working as manager under Manoj Singh Bisht, apart from oral averments. Fourthly, accused relied upon Ex. DW1/1 to show that he worked under the employment of complainant. However, the said document is the bank statement/ the transaction proofs of the payments received by the accused and thereafter transferred to other vendors. The said statement does not in any manner show that the accused was working under the employment of complainant or Manoj Singh Bisht as neither the name of the said persons finds mention nor the fact the accused being working as intermediary / employee finds mention. Fifthly, the accused never called Manoj Singh Bisht as witness to depose on his behalf with respect to his employment under him. Neither he called any of his colleagues to depose with regard to the said fact. Sixthly, it has been pleaded by accused that due to some reason the money could not be directly put in the account of the company.
Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.01.19 16:35:21 +0530 Therefore, he used to receive it in his account and thereafter transfer it in the account of the company in the evening of business day. Here, no reason has been disclosed by accused for the said activity. Nothing has been placed on record to show that why the payments were being received through account of accused when Manoj Singh Bisht was the legal owner of the company. No reason has been disclosed as to why the clients were not making payments directly in the account of the company. The said scenario cast shadows of doubt on the very employment of the accused under Manoj Singh Bisht on the point of legality of such transactions with the clients. The said situation is further accompanied with the fact that the accused pleaded that Manoj Singh Bisht worked in connivance with the complainant and cheated multiple people. In such a situation, the legality of employment of accused as intermediary or whatever designation he was employed at stands questioned. Seventhly, no contract or agreement has been placed on record by the accused to show that he acted as "intermediary" between the clients and the owner or complainant. And if so, then what was the commission charges or the intermediary fees that he was charging from the owner or complainant for the said service.
In absence of any proof with respect to the averment of being acting as an intermediary or under the employment of Manoj Singh Bisht, the said defence has not been proved.
17. Accused further pleaded that he gave cheques in question to Manoj Singh Bisht and not to the complainant ever. And that the Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:28 +0530 said cheques in question were issued for security purpose as he used to receive payments. Here again, no evidence in this regard has been brought. No details with respect to time or date or place of issuance of the cheques in question has been provided. Further, no reason has been disclosed till date for non-calling of the crucial witness Manoj Singh Bisht before the Court in order to support the defence of accused. Manoj Singh Bisht is a highly crucial witness for the case of accused as he had entire dealings with him and also issued the cheques in question to him and later pleaded defence of misuse of the cheques by him in connivance with complainant, in such a case, the non-calling of the said important witness casts shadows of doubt on the case of accused and calls for raising adverse inferences in view of s.114 of IEA .
18. It has been further pleaded by accused that as and when the payments were received from the clients, the same were transferred in the evening of business days. The same has been supported with the Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2. He has further pleaded that the moment he received security alert message from Paytm bank and the message with regard to blocking of his account, he became alert and approached Manoj Singh Bisht and complainant in this regard. This was the moment when the accused got to know that the complainant and Manoj Singh Bisht were cheating on people on the pretext of supplying herbal products/Ayurvedic medicines and before that he was not aware of Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.19 16:35:32 +0530 the said fact. However, he was not convinced with the assurance given by the said persons so he quit the job instantly.
Here, the conduct of accused in such a situation where he got to know about the cheat being played by complainant and Manoj Singh Bisht on several persons and where he was being used as intermediary also in the said cheating activity, does not stand in line with the conduct of a prudent person in the same situation, who instead of complaining about the said criminal activity rather left the job and his source of earning bread and also forgot to take his security cheques back and even left his WhatsApp web and gmail ID logged in, at the stake of the said cheaters to be misused.
The said conduct of accused also becomes more pertinent in view of the fact that misuse of his cheques has been pleaded as his defence. While he himself was inactive and non vigilant/careful with respect to his security cheques and mobile and email details. Further, the conduct of accused of leaving the job instantly in such a situation becomes highly indigestible. No reason has been disclosed till date as to why accused was in such a hurry to leave the job. The accused pleaded that he was being harassed and also abused by the complainant and Manoj Singh Bisht in the statement of defence given under section 251 Cr.P.C. Here nothing has been brought on record by the accused as to what steps he took against the said persons harassing him. It is not a case of force or pressure exerted on accused for leaving the job. He has Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:38 +0530 never prayed that he was forced to leave his job, rather, it is his defence that he left the job out of his own will.
Here, since the accused himself left the job as he was not willing to work with the cheaters anymore and at the time when he left the job, he was aware that the complainant and Manoj Singh Bisht were cheating on people, even then the accused did not ask for the return of his security cheques or even afterwards. He totally forgot to take his security cheques back from the said persons. And rather left them to be misused. He also forgot to issue any stop payment directions to his bank towards the said cheques as all the cheques in question have been dishonored with remarks "fund insufficient". It is also to be noted that the accused has not pleaded that his cheques were not returned as he never demanded.
Not only the cheques, the accused also left his WhatsApp web and email ID logged in on the Office computer to be misused by the alleged cheaters. Despite the reason for leaving of the job by accused was due to suspicious activities/misuse of paytm account of accused.
Here, it is to be noted that no date for leaving of the job has been mentioned till date by the accused. During cross- examination accused deposed that he left the job in November 2020, but he failed to provide the exact date and later stated- "at the time when I left the employment, the cheque in question had not bounced. It is correct to suggest that I left the employment under complainant before 11.11.2020".
Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:41 +0530 Accordingly, on the date, when the accused left the employment under alleged cheaters, the cheques in question were not presented for encashment. Here, the date of dishonor of the cheques in question becomes relevant, which is 03.11.2020, which means that accused left employment prior to the said date. Accordingly, as per the version of accused his WhatsApp web and email stayed login up till 11.11.2020, while he left employment prior to 03.11.2020. Firstly, the said possibility of continuous login of WhatsApp Web and email ID is highly impossible in view of the technical security provided by the said social networking sites. Secondly, the said averment of accused shows his lethargy as well as carelessness that he took no steps for the said period of more than a week to get his WhatsApp web and email ID logged out/unreachable from the approach of all alleged cheaters. Thirdly, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has relied his case upon Ex. CW1/12 and Ex. CW1/13, which are the email and WhatsApp conversation between complainant and accused, whereby the accused can be seen seeking time for repayment. The accused apart from blunt denial of the said documents has not come up with any other proof to support his denial. During course of arguments, Ld. counsel for accused reflected the manner in which the chats are prepared by the complainant with malicious intent, however, no such challenge was ever made during course of trial. Fourthly, the accused denied receipt of legal demand notice which is dated 05.11.2020 and the same was delivered to accused on 06.11.2020 i.e. prior to the conversation between accused and complainant on Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:48 +0530 11.11.2020 as per Ex. CW1/12 and Ex. CW1/13. The accused has admitted the address on legal notice to be his correct address.
Moreover, bailable warrants were received back served to accused on the said address though he denied receipt of summons. And further, no evidence has been led by the accused to support his defence of having not received legal notice, despite address being correct. In such a situation and further in view of the guidelines laid down in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr 2007 AIR SCW 3578, the presumption with respect to receipt of legal demand notice can be raised.
Further, it is to be noted that the accused accepted the filling of the amount in all the cheques in question. He further stated to have issued security cheques. No reason firstly has been disclosed as to when he was acting merely as intermediary and his job was only to transfer the payments received from the clients on the same date in the account of complainant or Manoj Singh Bisht then, for which security purpose the said cheques were issued by the accused. And even if so, on the perusal of Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2, it can be observed that the payments received by the clients were always in the figure of thousands (4 digits) and the same were further transferred by the accused, while the amount of the cheques in question is running in five digits i.e. Lacs. If it is the case of accused that he was working as intermediary and with all diligence he used to transfer the amount in the account of company, the same day of receipt, then why the accused issued the cheques running in lacs figure (5 digits figure) to Manoj Singh Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.01.19 16:35:52 +0530 Bisht, when the transactions in itself from the clients were only in four digits figure. Moreover, when the amount was transferred by the accused on the same day, then why PDCs were issued mentioning the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 on every cheque in question, when the transaction with the clients in itself was not known to accused (as he was not dealing with them and rather acting as only intermediary to receive the payments). Nothing has been brought on record as to how the accused came into the knowledge of the fact of having mentioned amount Rs. 2,00,000 on all the cheques in question.
19. Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment of Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa Crl. Appeal no. 3257/2024 with respect to non disclosement of the financial capacity of the complainant. It is to be noted that no challenge was ever raised on the financial capacity of the complainant during course of trial and accordingly, the present judgment is not aplicable to the facts of the present case as the complainant is not bound to explain his financial capacity in case of non challenge.
20. In view of the above reasoning, the defence of accused appears to be highly fictitious and afterthought. No date of leaving employment has been mentioned till date. In fact, no evidence with respect to employment of accused under Manoj Singh Bisht or under complainant has been provided till date. The reason for leaving of the job, despite being aware of the alleged cheating of Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.19 16:35:59 +0530 complainant/ Manoj Singh Bisht has not been disclosed till date. The reason of having left the security cheques along with the WhatsApp web or email ID logged in with the alleged fraudsters also not explained till date. Moreover, the said conduct of accused appears to be highly suspicious in view of the fact that he received intimation with respect to blocking of his account from Paytm on the ground of suspicious activity.
Hence, an abrupt attempt has been made by the accused to concoct a fictitious and false story of misuse of his cheques, while he himself made no attempt to prevent the same despite having opportunity. Accordingly, it can be observed that accused has failed to establish his defence even on the scale of preponderance of probability and has further failed to rebut the presumption arisen in favor of the complainant under section 118/139 NIA.
21. Accordingly accused Nitin Sodha stands convicted for the offence under section 138NIA.
22. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
23. Let the copy of judgment be provided to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on 19.01.2026.
Note : This judgment contains 17 pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.
SHIVANGI Digitally signed by
SHIVANGI MANGLA
MANGLA Date: 2026.01.19 16:36:04
+0530
(SHIVANGI MANGLA)
JMFC (NI Act) -05, West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19.01.2026
Ct. Case No 165/2020 Ranjeet Raj Chopra Vs. Nitin Sodha Page No. 17 of 17