Bangalore District Court
Krishna M vs Shaila Shree R on 2 February, 2026
KABC030238652022
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2026
C.C.No. 9345/ 2022
Complainant : Krishna M
S/o. Muniyappa
R/at No.36/1, 2nd Cross,
8th Main, 3rd Cross,
Jayanagar, 2nd Block,
Bangalore - 560 011
{ By Sri. Ramu V. - Advocate }
Vs.
Accused : Smt. Shaila Shree R
W/o. Shiva Kumar
Aged about 38 years,
2 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022
No.114, 3rd Cross,
Jayanagar 2nd Block,
Bangalore - 560 011
{ By Sri.- Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted.
Date of Order : 02.02.2026
3 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act").
02. The factual backgrounds of the complaint are as under.
It is stated that, the Complainant and accused are known to each other for the past 16 years and they are family friends. The husband of accused is employee of BWSSB and also milk vendor. The Complainant was residing in the rented house of mother-in-law of the accused. Therefor the wife of the Complainant and accused are close friends and helping each other. In the year 2011 the Complainant has taken the house of the mother-in-law of accused on lease for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. After completion of lease period the Complainant has shifted his house to the same locality and has 4 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 demanded for the returned of lease amount. The accused has requested 6 months time for the payment of lease amount. It is further stated that previously the accused has availed Rs. 20 lakhs from the wife of Complainant and later on various dates the accused has received a sum of Rs. 23 lakhs by way of cash and bank transfer and have assured to repay the said amount within short period. In order to repay the total loan amount of Rs.43 lakhs the accused and her husband were ready to register 2 sites in the name of Complainant and his wife. When the Complainant has approached the accused and her husband several times to register the sites, they were avoiding the Complainant. Thereafter when the Complainant and his wife have requested the accused in the year 2020 for the payment of aforesaid amount, cheque bearing No.623748 for Rs.43 lakhs in favour of complainant's wife has been issued in hand writing of accused on 06.05.2020 wherein the some mistake had occurred in filling amount as 43,00,000/- as 4,30,000/- but in words mentioned as Rs.43 lakhs, when the 5 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 Complainant has informed this mistake to the accused and her husband have promised to issue another cheques. When the Complainant again had requested, the accused and her husband to pay the some of Rs. 43 lakhs, the accused on various dates has paid Rs. 7 lakhs by way of cash and for remaining balance of Rs.43 lakhs the accused has issued 4 cheques bearing No.623745, 623746, 061827, 623747 each for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs to the Complainant . Two cheque has been issued in favour of complainant and 2 cheques were issued in the name of wife of the Complainant drawn on Canara Bank, Ashok Pillar Branch Bangalore with an assurance to be honoured. In the year 2021 as per the assurance of the accused the Complainant has presented cheque bearing No. 623746 with his banker for encashment , on 29.10.2021 it was returned unpaid with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. On 29.11.2021 the demand notice was got issued to the accused her husband by RPAD, in spite of due service of the said notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, instead has given reply on 13.01.2022. Therefore, 6 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 it is prayed to punish the accused under section 138 of NI Act and grant him compensation.
03. On presentation of the complaint, this court has verified the averments of the complaint and also annexed documents. Having made out prima facie case cognizance has been taken for the offense punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. As per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association V/s. Union of India and others sworn statement of the Complainant has been recorded as PW1 and in all got marked 5 documents at Ex.P1 to P5. Having made out prima facie case it is ordered to register the complaint in register No.III and to issue process against the accused.
04. In response to the court summons, the accused put his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along with necessary applications, since the alleged offense is bailable in nature, accused has been enlarged on bail. The 7 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 plea has been recorded and read over to the accused person and he pleaded not guilty and wish to put forth his defense. As per section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sworn statement of the Complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence and the accused has been permitted to cross-examine of PW1. Thereafter the husband of Complainant has filed IA under section 302 of Cr.P.C. to contest the case of the Complainant on her behalf and by considered order the said application was allowed and the wife of the Complainant is permitted to adduced evidence on behalf of her husband. Therefore the GPA holder of Complainant and his wife by name Smt. Sudha has filed her affidavit evidence as PW1 wherein she has replicated the averments of the complaint and got marked her SPA as Ex.P.6. The Learned defense counsel has cross examined PW1 substantially. On completion of evidence from the prosecution side, the statement of accused has been recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused the incriminating evidence, the accused denied the same in toto and wanted to adduce her 8 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 oral evidence. But the accused did not adduce her oral evidence. Instead her counsel has submitted no defense side evidence.
05. The Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties have filed their written arguments.
In support of written arguments by the Complainant the following citations have been relied. 1 Criminal Appeal No. 508/ 2015 of Karnataka High Court 2 Criminal Appeal No.362/ 2022 of Hon'ble Apex Court 3 Criminal R P No. 841/2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 4 Criminal R P No. 201/2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 5 Criminal R P No. 6/2014 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 6 Criminal Appeal 230*231/2019 of Hon'ble Apex Court 7 2019(5) SCR 417 SC 8 2025 Livelaw (SC) 383 In support of written arguments the Learned defense counsel has relied the following citations 9 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 1 2024(1) KARLJ 35 2 ILR 2021 (KAR)2437 3 2025 (4) KCCR 3474 4 2017 (3) DCR 461 Delhi High Court
06. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused has issued a cheques bearing No. 623746 dated 15.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.9 lakhs drawn on Canara Bank, Bangalore towards the discharge of his lawful debt of the complainant and when the Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, it was returned unpaid due to shara as "Payment stopped by drawer" as per banker's memo and in-spite of issuance of demand notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, thereby has 10 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Negative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that, the Complainant was residing as a tenant in the house of mother-in-law of the accused and has paid lease amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and during the said period the accused herself borrowed a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs personally from the wife of Complainant and subsequently the accused has borrowed a hand loan of Rs.23 lakhs from the Complainant by way of cash and bank transfer in all the accused and her husband are liable to pay the total of Rs.43 lakhs and in the meanwhile the accused has paid a sum of Rs.7 laksh 11 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 by way of cash and for the repayment of remaining amount of Rs.36 lakhs, the accused has issued 4 cheques of Rs.9 lakhs each when the Complainant has presented the disputed cheque out of 4 cheques, it was returned unpaid due to 'payment stopped by the drawer' and in spite of issuance of demand notice and service of the same the accused has failed to make payment of cheque amount.
Accordingly, it is sought to prosecute the accused under section 138 of NI Act.
09. To substantiate and to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts, the sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence wherein the SPA holder by name Sudha as PW2 has replicated the averments of the complaint and got marked in all 6 documents. Ex.P1 is the disputed cheque, Ex.P2 is bank return memo, Ex.P3 is the demand notice, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the reply notice and Ex.P.6 is the SPA. To disprove the case of the Complainant and also to rebut the Legal presumptions which could be drawn in 12 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 favour of complainant, the accused did not entered in the witness box and also not produced any documentary evidence. However, the Learned defense counsel has substantially cross examined PW1.
10. Before to appreciate oral and documentary evidence produced on records, it is imperative on this court to find out whether the Complainant has complied the necessary ingredients of section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
11. Looking upon the disputed cheque, bank return memo, demand notice and also reply notice at Ex.P.1 to 3 and P5 it can be seen that, the disputed cheque has been presented with bank within its validity period and demand notice has been issued within 30 days from the date of receiving the bank return memo and only upon receiving the demand notice the accused has given his reply on 13.01.2022. The present complaint has filed before this court on 23.12.2021. Thus, it can be concluded 13 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 that, the present complaint has been filed before this court only after the compliance of the requirements of section 138 of NI Act.
12. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important provisions and they provides for raising mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 , a precedent is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required to raise presumption in favour of the the complainant stating that, the accused has issued the 14 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The burden or reverse onus shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall prove before the court on preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands rebutted.
13. The Learned prosecuting counsel has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar, Rohitbhai Jivalal Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and another, Tedhi Singh V/s. Narayana Dass 15 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 Mahant wherein also the law laid in the judgment of Rangappa V/s. Mohan has been reiterated.
14. In the instance case as per Ex.P5 the accused has given his reply at Ex.P5 wherein he has denied the entire case of the Complainant by giving para wise reply interlia contended that, the accused do not know the Complainant. The Complainant might have some how got signed the cheque of the accused from 3rd party and presented stealthily and got it dishonoured. In the written arguments it is the contention of the Learned prosecuting counsel that, to prove this defense taken in the reply notice, the accused neither has entered in the witness box nor has produced any documentary evidence, the evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged. Therefore, he has sought to convict the accused by holding Legal presumptions under section 118 and 139 of NI Act have been rebutted. Per contra, the Learned defense counsel in his written arguments contended that the evidence of PW1 is mixed up with multiple claims made with regard to loan amount and 16 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 cheque amount coupled with PW1 claiming Rs. 20 lakhs alleged to have been advanced earlier to the year 2016 to the accused. Further argued that, no document have been produced to show that PW1 had with him a sum of rs. 23 lakhs. It is further contended that, the alleged debt is time barred debt, therefore it is sought to dismiss the complaint and acquit accused. As per the law laid down in the above relied judgments and even in the well known judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa V/s. Mudibasappa it is held that, in order to rebut the Legal presumptions the accused need not to enter in the witness box and adduce his oral evidence and also to produce documentary evidences. Instead the accused made rely upon the evidence produced by the Complainant. Therefore, on this point the contention of the Learned prosecuting counsel is untenable and not acceptable. On careful perusal of para No.5 of the complaint it is not clear. By reading para No.5 of the complaint in entirety, no clear facts disclosed. It is stated in this para that, previously loan amount of Rs. 20 lakhs due to the 17 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 Complainant's wife. When this loan amount of Rs. 20 lakhs taken by whom and paid by whom. When the said amount was paid no detail account is narrated. Further it is pleaded in the said para that, the accused on various dates received from the Complainant short term hand loan amount of Rs.23 lakhs by way of cash and bank transfer. Here also on which dates of various dates how much amount was paid by way of cash and how much amount was paid through bank transfer is not pleaded clearly. The amount of Rs.50 lakhs in total is not a meager amount, it is huge amount. Even in respect of lease no documentary evidences are produced except the oral testimony of PW1. PW2 in her cross examination in para No.2 of page No.7 stated that, in the year 2016 they have paid total sum of Rs. 23 lakhs in part by part but they have not taken any security documents. Since it is huge amount, no one would be excepted to advance such an amount without taking any security documents. Otherwise the very advancement of huge amount creates doubt. Even she stated in her cross examination that, she had a 18 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 document in the house to show that, they had money of Rs.23 lakhs but the same was not produced before the court. That apart she has not produced before the court the document of lease agreement to hold that, the accused and his family as well as the Complainant and his wife were close friends and that, the Complainant has resided in the house of mother-in-law of accused for a long time. Since the alleged amount was lent in the year 2016 is pleaded in the para No.5 of the complaint and the present compliant is filed before this court in the month of February 2022, it is time barred debt as per Section 18 of Limitation Act and no acknowledgment debts have been produced by the Complainant before the court to show that, the accused has issued the same as per the requirements of section 19 of Limitation Act. The Learned defense counsel has relied the verdict of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2001 Kar. 2437 in the case Bidar Urban Co-op Bank M/s. Girish also relied another recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2024(1) KAR.L.J. 35. I have 19 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022 carefully gone through the relied judgments wherein it is held that, the time barred debt the Complainant the penal provisions of Section 138 of NI Act is also barred. By considering the evidence elicited during the cross examination of PW1, I am of the considered opinion that, the Legal presumptions stands rebutted and that, the Complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:
15. In view of the above findings, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of code of criminal procedure, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 20 C.C. No. 9345/ 2022
The bail bond of accused and surety stands canceled subject to appeal period. {Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of February 2026}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACJM, ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Krishna M P.W.2 Sudha
List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.1(a) Signatures of the accused Ex.P.2 Bank endorsements Ex.P.3 Copy of the legal notice Ex.P.4 Postal receipt Ex.P.5 Reply notice Ex.P6 SPA
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Nil XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.