Delhi District Court
Pyramid Building Solutions Through Its ... vs Surya Prakash Chauhan on 24 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:
2026.02.24
15:59:33 +0530
(Signature of Presiding Officer)
Date: 24.02.2026
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 1
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 :-
Pyramid Building Solutions DLST020450032024
Through its Proprietor,
Shamshul Husaain,
Office at: E-12/21, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
.... Complainant
VS.
Surya Prakash Chauhan
S/o Lt. Sh. Prithvi Raj Chauhan,
R/o 9/242, Dakshinpuri Extension,
New Delhi -110062.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Pyramid Building Solutions
2. Name of Accused : Surya Prakash Chauhan
Offence complained of or Section 138, Negotiable
3. :
proved Instruments Act, 1881
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of Filing : 29.10.2024
6. Date of Reserving Order : 02.02.2026
7. Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026
8. Final Order : Convicted
Argued by :- Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ld. counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ram Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 2
Digitally
signed by
SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:37
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed against the accused Surya Prakash
Chauhan S/o Lt. Sh. Prithvi Raj Chauhan under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). The substance of
allegations and assertions of the complainant, Pyramid Building Solutions through
its proprietor Shamshul Hussain, is that the accused had hired scaffolding on rent
from the complainant at the site of accused i.e. Ircon Building, Saket, New Delhi.
The complainant had supplied 55,000 sq. ft. of scaffolding at Rs. 12 per sq. ft. and
the total charges including the installation and dismantling of scaffolding was
agreed at Rs. 6,60,000/-. The accused had made a part payment of Rs. 2,43,500/- to
the complainant through online mode and thereafter issued one cheque bearing no.
563919 dated 23.08.2024 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Fifty
Thousand) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as "cheque in question") in favour of the complainant. The said cheque,
when presented, was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 27.08.2024 by the
bank with remarks, "Funds Insufficient". The complainant, then, issued demand
notice dated 01.09.2024, through his counsel upon the accused. Even after the
receipt of the demand notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within
the stipulated period and hence, the present complaint.
2. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was summoned
to face trial vide order dated 27.05.2025 and after his appearance, notice of
accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as "CrPC") was served on him on 15.07.2025. In reply to the notice of
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 3
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:41 +0530
accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He stated that he is
signatory to the cheque but denied his liability on account of quantum of liability
and repayment.
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 : Shamshul Hussain (Complainant)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.CW1/A : Original Cheque bearing no. 563919
Ex.CW1/B : Return Memo dated 27.08.2024
Legal Demand Notice along with original postal
Ex.CW1/C (Colly) :
receipt, tracking report and screen shot of WhatsApp
Ex.CW1/1 : 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 him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, accused accepted the dishonour of cheque in
question. He disputed the liability on the ground of quantum of liability and
repayment.
Pursuant thereto, the accused has led the following oral and
documentary evidence in his defence-:
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW 1 : Surya Prakash Chauhan (Accused)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 4
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date: 2026.02.24
15:59:46 +0530
Mark-CW1/D1 (Colly) : Screen shot of payments
Mark-CW1/D2 (Colly) : Bank statement
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 is liable for making the
payment of cheque amount since the accused has admitted the transaction between
the parties and the accused has not placed on record any proof of the alleged
repayment. 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 since the
complainant has failed to place on record any ledger or invoice of transaction
between the parties. Further, the complainant has admitted certain part payments
made by the accused and the complainant has taken contradictory stances before
the Court. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
8. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 5
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.24
15:59:50
+0530
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 cheque, Ex. CW1/A which the accused has not
disputed as being drawn on his account. It is not disputed that the cheque in
question was presented within the validity period. The cheque in question was
returned unpaid vide return memo, Ex. CW1/B 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.
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 6
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:54 +0530
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/C (Colly). The cheque in question was dishonoured vide return memo Ex.
CW1/B dated 27.08.2024. The legal notice was addressed to the accused and sent
by the counsel for the complainant is dated 01.09.2024. The receipt of legal
demand notice is denied by the accused in his plea of defence recorded u/s 251
Cr.P.C., however, the same is admitted by the accused in his statement recorded
u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Further, the accused has also admitted the receipt of legal demand
notice in his cross-examination. No dispute is raised on this issue during the final
arguments. Therefore, it is proved that the legal notice was delivered to the
accused. 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 plea of accused recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and 294 Cr.P.C.,
the accused has admitted to being a signatory to the cheque in question. 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 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.
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 7
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
PARASHAR
SHIVA
Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.24
15:59:57
+0530
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 the present case, the contentions raised by the ld. counsel for
the accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below.
14. COMPLAINANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY
OF CHEQUE AMOUNT.
14.1. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has failed
to prove the outstanding liability of cheque amount since during the cross-
examination, the complainant has admitted to payments by the accused and further,
the complainant has not placed on record a ledger statement or invoices to support
his claim. However, the above argument of the accused suffers from certain
inherent fallacies.
14.2. Firstly, the accused has failed to place on record any proof of cash
payment made by him to the complainant. The accused has stated that he made a
cash payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant in cash however, the accused
has not placed any oral or documentary proof of the same.
14.3. Secondly, the accused has admitted to the business transaction
between the parties. During the cross-examination, the accused has stated that the
parties had entered into business upon "oral understanding". The accused has
admitted that he had taken scaffolding on rent from the complainant at his site. The
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 8
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:01 +0530
accused has not denied the relationship and transaction between the parties.
14.4. Thirdly, the accused has failed to place on record any cogent ledger
statement of alleged payments made by him to the complainant.
14.5. Fourthly, the complainant has admitted a part payment of around Rs.
2,50,000/- by the accused through online mode and another payment of Rs.
80,000/- in cash. Even if the said payments are taken into consideration, the
accused is still liable towards the cheque amount [Rs. 2,50,000/-] out of the total
outstanding liability of Rs. 6,60,000/-. On the contrary, the accused has failed to
show a part payment in addition to the payments admitted by the complainant.
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the stance of the accused
in his deposition before this court is not trustworthy. The accused has failed to
raise doubts upon the version of the complainant and the accused has further failed
to bring any evidence whatsoever in support of his defence. The accused has failed
to prove that the cheque amount was not outstanding upon him. 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.
16. 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
legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the second ingredient is also proved in the
present case.
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 9
Digitally signed
by SHIVA
SHIVA PARASHAR
PARASHAR Date: 2026.02.24
16:00:06 +0530
CONCLUSION -
17. 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.
18. 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 Surya Prakash Chauhan
S/o L. Sh. Prithvi Raj Chauhan 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 Date:
PARASHAR 2026.02.24
Pronounced in open court on 24.02.2026. 16:00:14 +0530 (Shiva Parashar) JMFC (NI Act)-04, South Saket, New Delhi Note: This judgment contains 10 pages and each page has been signed by me.
CC NI Act 9039/2024 Pyramid Building Solutions vs. Surya Prakash Chauhan 10