Delhi District Court
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chhikara on 6 August, 2025
CNR No.DLSW020043812020
CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara
DLSW020043812020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI RASTOGI, JMFC
( NI ACT) 01, S-W DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF: Ct. Case 3346/2020
CNR NO. DLSW020043812020
KALYAN SINGH
S/O GIRRAJ SINGH
R/O H.NO 99A Z-BLOCK, PHASE 2
GOPAL NAGAR EXTENSION
MAIN SURAKHPUR ROAD
NAJAFGARH, DELHI-110043
THROUGH ATTORNEY:
VINAY SINGH,
S/o SH. BHAWANI PRASAD SINGH,
R/O B -174, FLAT NO.2, TOP FLOOR,
DUGGAL COLONY, KHANPUR,
NEW DELHI - 110062 .......COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
SANDEEP CHHIKARA
S/0 SH. DHARAM PAL CHHIKARA
H.NO A-45, 1ST FLOOR,
PANCHSHEEL VIHAR,
MALVIYA NAGAR EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110017
Also At :-
J3/26, Ist FLOOR,
RIGHT SIDE KHIRKI EXTENSION
MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110017 ...... ACCUSED Digitally
signed by
SURABHI
SURABHI RASTOGI
RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06
16:36:16
+0530
CC No. 3346/2020
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 1 of 17
CNR No.DLSW020043812020
CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.01.2020
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF: U/S 138 NI ACT
PLEA OF ACCUSED: NOT GUILTY
DECISION QUO ACCUSED : CONVICTED
DATE OF DECISION : 06.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall decide the complaint filed by the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) against the accused for dishonour of cheque bearing no. 269130 dated 15.10.2019 for Rs 5,00,000 and cheque bearing no. 269131 dated 15.10.2019 for Rs 4,50,000 (hereinafter referred to as cheques in question).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant and accused were known to each other through common friend Mr. Vinay Singh. The accused approached the complainant in February 2017 for friendly loan of Rs 10 lakhs for one year. The complainant arranged Rs 3,07,000 from his Central Bank of India account and Rs 2,90,000 from his State Bank of India account and transferred in the account of accused on 02.09.2017. Rest Rs 4,03,000 was given by him to the accused in cash on different intervals in the same month. In October 2019, the accused issued the cheques in Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:36:22 CC No. 3346/2020 +0530 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 2 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara question to the complainant in discharge of his legal liability. The accused also assured to pay remaining amount of Rs 50,000 after some time. These cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured with remarks "payment stopped by drawer". Then the complainant issued the legal demand notice to the accused and since no payment was made by the accused within stipulated time, the complainant filed the present complaint.
PRE TRIAL PROCEDURE
3. In support of this complaint, the complainant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied on the following documents:
a. Power of Attorney (Ex.CW1/1) b. Two Orginal Cheques (Ex.CW1/2 and CW1/3) c. Returning Memo (Ex.CW1/4) d. Legal Demand Notice (Ex.CW1/5) e. Postal Receipt (Ex.CW1/6) f. Delivery Report (Ex. CW1/7)
4. Upon appreciation of pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned for the offence u/s 138 NI Act. Notice of accusation u/s 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) was issued against the accused. In the notice accused had admitted his signature on the cheque but denied filing of particulars. He has denied receiving of legal notice however Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
CC No. 3346/2020 2025.08.06
16:36:28 +0530
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 3 of 17
CNR No.DLSW020043812020
CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara admitted that address mentioned is correct. He has stated that he gave 6 blank signed cheques, including cheque in question to Mr. Vinay for sanction of loan from NBFC. He has stated that he has not received any loan. He also stated that he had not asked complainant for any loan therefore he has no liability towards the complainant.
5. Application u/s 145(2) NI Act was allowed, and the accused was given the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and her witness, if any. CW1, CW2 and CW3 were examined, cross examined and discharged. CW2 has brought on record bank statement of accused i.e. Ex CW2/B. CW3 has brought on record bank statement of complainant i.e. Ex. CW3/B and the account statement of complainant to show entry of cheque no. 470265 i.e. Ex. CW3/C. CE was closed on 11.09.2023.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC was recorded and all incriminating evidence were put to him. During his statement he has stated that he does not know the complainant. He further stated that he knows Vinay Singh as he is his friend's brother in law. It was also stated that he had never asked Rs 10 lakhs from the complainant. He had admitted his signature on cheques in question and stated that he had not filled particulars on the cheques in question. He has also Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI CC No. 3346/2020 RASTOGI Date:
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 4 of 17 2025.08.06 16:36:34 +0530 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara stated that Mr. Vinay Singh had taken six blank signed cheques, including the cheques in question from him, for sanctioning loan from NBFC. It was also stated that he had given copy of Adhaar Card and PAN Card to Mr. Vinay Singh. He had denied any liability towards the complainant as no loan was taken from him. Receipt of legal demand notice was admitted by him, Accused had stated that he wishes to lead lead and examined himself as witness. DW1/accused and DW2 were examined, cross examined and discharged. Then the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant had argued that the present case is related to a friendly loan of Rs 10,00,000 given by the complainant to the accused for period of one year. It was also argued that accused had admitted his signatures on the cheques in question therefore presumption lies in the favour of the complainant. It was also argued that the account statement shows that the amount was transferred from the complainant.
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that the complainant had stated in the complaint that cheques in question were given in 2019 and loan was given in 2017 but in evidence he has stated that cheques in question were given in 2019 at the time of advancement of loan. It was also argued that the accused had never met the complainant and the cheques in question was given for purpose of Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
CC No. 3346/2020 2025.08.06
16:36:40
+0530
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 5 of 17
CNR No.DLSW020043812020
CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara loan from NBFC to Mr. Vinay Singh, which is being misused. In respect of the amount in the bank statement, Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that the payment was made by Mr. Vinay Singh in respect of committee run by Mr. Vinay Singh. It was also argued that a prudent person will not give odd figure of Rs 4,03,000 in cash as he would give amount in round figure. It was also argued that the document of power of attorney was not signed by attorney holder. It was later argued that no ITR was brought on record. It was also argued that when the amount was given by the complainant is also not mentioned by him. At the end, it was argued that the accused had no transaction with the complainant and this cheque is being misused by the complainant. In rebuttal of point of power of attorney not signed by attorney holder, Ld. Counsel of the complainant had argued that there is no requirement for signture by attorney holder.
9. I have heard counsel for parties, perused the record and have gone through relevant provisions of law. The following points required determination in the present case:
1.Whether the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act is made out against the accused?
2.Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:36:48 +0530 CC No. 3346/2020 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 6 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION
9. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant is duty-
bound to prove the following ingredients of Section 138 NI Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Aparna A. Shah v M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd & Anr. (2013) 8 SCC 7
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI payment of the said amount of money to the payee RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:36:53 +0530 CC No. 3346/2020 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 7 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
10. Further, once the accused had admitted his signature on the cheque in question, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act and Section 118 (a) of the NI Act becomes applicable.
Section 118 (a) of the NI Act provides, Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--(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.
Section 118 (g) of the NI Act provides, Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--(g) that the holder is holder in due course --that holder of 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 has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof, by means of an offence or fraud or for unlawful consideration, the burden to prove that he is holder in due course lies on him.
Section 139 of the NI Act provides, 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 Digitally signed by SURABHI RASTOGI SURABHI Date:
RASTOGI 2025.08.06 16:36:59 +0530 CC No. 3346/2020 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 8 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Further, Section 146 of the NI Act provides, The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of a bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved.
The presumptions raised against the accused are rebuttable presumptions, and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused, and the standard of proof required for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities.. The accused can discharge this burden either by bringing his own evidence or by cross-examination of the complainant.
FINDINGS
11. In the present case, the complainant had prima facie proved the ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act. These are (i) cheque in question is drawn on account maintained by the accused as the same is admitted by the accused (ii) the cheque was dishonoured as shown in return memo therefore presumption u/s 146 of the NI Act becomes applicable (iii) legal demand notice was sent at the correct address of the accused (iv) the accused had not made the payment within 15 days from receipt of the notice. Now Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:37:18 CC No. 3346/2020 +0530 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 9 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara in respect of the question of legally enforceable debt, presumption u/s 118(a) of the NI Act and Section 139 of the NI Act comes into play since the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question in the notice of accusation put to him u/s 251 CrPC. Now the accused has the burden to rebut the case of the complainant.
12. To discharge this burden, the accused had taken defence that the cheques in question were given to Mr. Vinay Singh for obtaining loan from NBFC. Other defence is that the amount transferred by the complainant was in relation to a committee run by Mr. Vinay Singh. One legal defence taken by the accused is that the power of attorney was not not signed by the attorney holder.
FIRST DEFENCE- POA NOT SIGNED BY HOLDER
13. The first defence taken by the accused is that the POA is not signed by the holder and only the issuer/complainant had signed the same. In the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SCW 6385, Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that ..A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act........ A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent........Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers-of-Attorney Act is valid. Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:37:27 CC No. 3346/2020 +0530 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 10 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara Now, as per Power of Attorney Act, 1882, Section 1A provides that "Power-of-Attorney" includes any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it. Further, as per the Indian Contract Act 1872, the contract of agency can be created expressly or impliedly. It can be even created by necessity and ratification. Therefore, there is no legal requirement of execution of Power of Attorney by the agent/POA holder. In the present case, the document creating agency was signed by the principal/complainant and also by two witnesses. Therefore, the ground of non-execution of POA by the holder is not tenable.
SECOND DEFENCE- CHEQUES WERE GIVEN TO VINAY SINGH
14. To deal with defence, it is important ot take into considertaion Section 118 (g) of the NI Act as per which complainant is presumed to be holder in due course. The burden to prove that cheque in question was given to Mr. Vinay lies on the accused. The accused had tried to prove the same by bringing the fact that the complainant had given inconsistent statement as to time when the cheques were given and by the fact that the complainant was unknown to him.
15. The complaint mentioned that loan was advanced in 2017 and cheques in question were given by the accused in 2019, Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI CC No. 3346/2020 RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:37:33 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 11 of 17 +0530 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara however in the evidence CW1 has stated that cheques were given in 2019 at the time of advancement of loan. CW1 has further explained the senerio that led to issuance of the cheque as that the cheques in question were given in his presence outside his residence and that the accused had given two cheques to the complainant at the time of advancement of loan. CW1 further explained that the complainant himself called him to be present, as the complainant knew accused through him. In the later part of evidence CW1 has mentioned that the accused approached the complainant for loan in 2017 and that the complainant gave the loan. By looking at this evidence, CW1 who claims to be an eye witness of the loan transaction that resulted in issuance of cheque has given inconsitent statements. The testimony of CW1 is not wholly reliable. But the fact is that the bank statement of the complainant i.e. Ex. CW3/B shows the transaction of amount of Rs 2,90,000 (through cheque no. 470265) transferred to the account of accused. Further the accused/DW1 had admitted in his evidence the fact of credit of two payments of Rs 3,07,000 and Rs 2,90,000 in his bank account from the account of the complainant. Now the accused had the burden to prove his defence that the amount transferred was related to committee transaction with Mr. Vinay.
THIRD DEFENCE- COMMITTEE TRANSACTION WITH MR. VINAY
16. Accused had not brought on record anything to show that Mr. Vinay was running a committee. No one has examined to show that Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI CC No. 3346/2020 Date:
RASTOGI 2025.08.06 16:37:39 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 12 of 17 +0530 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara Mr. Vinay was running committee. Therefore, this defence of accused is not proved.
FOURTH DEFENCE- CHEQUES TAKEN BY MR. VINAY FOR LOAN FROM NBFC
17. Accused had taken the defence that maternal uncle of Mr. Vinay works in NBFC in Munrika, New Delhi and that Mr. Vinay had taken 6 cheques from the accused on pretext of providing loan from NBFC. DW1/accused has further stated in his evidence that Mr. Vinay also took copy of his and his wife's Adhaar Card and PAN Card and also took his and his wife's signatures on some blank papers. DW1 has further stated that his friend Rajat Tiwari (DW2) has accompanied him to Khanpur Bus Stand for taking documents. DW1 in his cross examination has stated that he had no proof that the maternal uncle of Mr. Vinay works in any NBFC. It was further stated that he ahs no information whether Mr. Vinay has any maternal uncle and that he has never met his maternal uncle. DW2 when called as witness has stated that in 2018 he along with accused went to Khanpur Depo to hand over cheques to Bobby (Mr. Vinay) who is brother in law of accused. DW1 has stated in his evidence that Bobby (Mr. Vinay) is brother in law of his friend. In his cross examination DW2 has stated and that he does not remember the month and date when the cheques was given. It was further stated that he had no knowledge related to the case. The testimony of DW2 is also not reliable considering the Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
CC No. 3346/2020 2025.08.06
16:37:45
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 13 of 17 +0530
CNR No.DLSW020043812020
CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara fact that he admitted the fact of not remembering the date or month of the handling over cheques and also admitted not knowing the facts of the case. Above all DW2 has also not correctly mentioned the identity of Mr. Vinay.
CORROBORATING FACTS
18. In respect of the fact of receiving amount in the bank account of the accused, the accused/ DW1 has stated in his evidence that Mr. Vinay had given him 4 cheques out of which 3 were already bounced and then he again presented the said cheques in bank and they were encashed. The accused had not brought on record any details of these cheques, which could have given some support to the version of accused of receiving amount from the committee run by Mr. Vinay.
CONCLUSION
19. From the above it can be concluded that the cheque in question was issued on the bank account maintained by the accused. This cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured. Thereafter, the legal demand notice was issued to the accused by the complainant, calling him to make the payment. He did not make the payment, and that led to the filing of the present complaint. On admission of the accused of his signature on the Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI RASTOGI cheque in question, the burden to rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:37:51 +0530 CC No. 3346/2020 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 14 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara Act was shifted to the accused. The grounds of defence taken by the accused had not sufficiently rebutted this presumption. On the other hand, though the CW1 has given inconsistent testimony with respect to transaction in question but the bank statement of the complainant and admission of accused of receiving part amount from the complainant shows existence of the liability of accused towards the complainant. There are other corroborating facts that are not in support of the accused. Thus, this court is of the view that the present complaint disclosed the existence of legally enforceable liability against the accused. The complainant has been successful in proving all the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption by creating any reasonable doubt in the version of the complainant.
22. The accused, Mr. Sandeep Chhikara, is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and is convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act in the present case.Digitally signed by SURABHI
SURABHI RASTOGI Pronounced in open court RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:37:57 +0530 on 06.08.2025 (SURABHI RASTOGI) JMFC (NI Act)-01 DWARKA COURT, SWD, DELHI CC No. 3346/2020 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 15 of 17 CNR No.DLSW020043812020 CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara This judgment contains 16 pages, and each page bears my signature.
Accused be now heard on the quantum of sentence.Digitally signed by SURABHI
SURABHI RASTOGI RASTOGI Date:
2025.08.06 16:38:03 +0530 (SURABHI RASTOGI) JMFC (NI Act)-01 DWARKA COURT, SWD, DELHI CERTIFICATE The convict has been apprised that he can avail the services of LAC for pursuing higher remedies including filing of appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The convict has also been apprised about the address and contact of concerned official from DLSA, Dwarka Court, South-West, Delhi i.e. Administrative Block, Ground Floor, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, Phone No. 28041480, email id : [email protected] Digitally signed by SURABHI RASTOGI SURABHI Date:
RASTOGI 2025.08.06
16:38:08
+0530
(SURABHI RASTOGI)
JMFC (NI Act)-01
DWARKA COURT,
SWD, DELHI
CC No. 3346/2020
Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 16 of 17
CNR No.DLSW020043812020
CC No. 3346/2020, Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara CC No. 3346/2020 Kalyan Singh vs Sandeep Chikara DOD 06.08.2025 17 of 17