Bangalore District Court
Nirmala K P vs Kiran K on 17 September, 2025
KABC0B0014562024
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES &
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21).
PRESENT: Sri. VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH,
LL.B.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 17th Day of September-2025
C.C. No.15125/2024
Complainant : Smt. Nirmala K. P
W/o Madhava Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.5, 1st Cross,
Rajapalya, I.T.P.L Main road,
Mahadevapura,
Bangalore-560 048.
(By Sri. M. N. Madhusudhan, Adv.,)
V/s.
Accused : Sri. Kiran. K
S/o Paravathi. K,
R/at No.47/3, 9th main,
3rd Cross, Near Ayyappaswamy Temple,
Hongasandra,
Bangalore-560 068.
Also at
SCCH-21 2 C.C. No.15125/2024
No.159, 5th Cross,
1st Block, Viswapriya Nagara,
Begur Road, Bangalore-560 068.
(By Smt. Hemalatha. P, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The accused in this case is tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, on the complaint of the complainant.
2. The summary of the complainant's case is that:
The complainant and accused are good family friends. Due to the friendship the accused has approached the accused for financial assistance of Rs.1,40,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of building as well as business development and for family necessities. The complainant arranged and paid Rs.1,75,00,000/- to the accused and executed an agreement dtd: 13.10.2021 which was duly signed by the accused before the witnesses. Towards partial discharge of the said liability, accused issued cheque bearing No.143104 dtd: 20.12.2021 for Rs.35,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.143106 dtd:20.02.2022 for Rs.35,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, BTM Layout branch, Bangalore. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through his bankers Punjab National Bank, Mahadevapura branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheques came to be dishonored on the ground of 'Funds Insufficient' on 22.02.2022 and 25.02.2022. Thereafter on 14.03.2022, complainant got issued legal notice through RPAD SCCH-21 3 C.C. No.15125/2024 demanding for repayment of the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice sent through RPAD was returned with shara 'Door Locked'. The accused not paid the cheques amount and therefore, this complaint is filed on 27.05.2022.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 138 of N. I. Act and sworn statement was recorded. As there was sufficient ground to proceed further, a criminal case has been registered against the accused and he was summoned. The substance of accusation is orally stated to the accused and his plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and submitted that he has defence to make.
4. In support of the Complainant's case, the sworn statement filed by the Complainant by way of affidavit during the pre-summoning stage is considered as evidence of the Complainant and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 documents are marked. The statement of the accused is recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his answers were recorded. During cross- examination learned Counsel for accused confronted one document and same is marked at Ex.D.1.
5. Heard the argument by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. The accused has not advanced the argument.
SCCH-21 4 C.C. No.15125/20246. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that he has complied the ingredients of Section 138 of N. I. Act in order to constitute an offence?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act 1881?
3. What order?
7. My answer to the above points is as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of N. I. Act, the cheque shall be presented to the bank within a period of 3 months from its date. On its dishonor, the drawer or holder of the cheque as the case may be shall cause demand notice within 30 days from the date of dishonor, demanding to repay within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. If the drawer of the cheque fails to repay the amount mentioned in the cheque within 15 days from the date of service of notice, the cause of action arises for filing the complaint.
SCCH-21 5 C.C. No.15125/20249. The sworn statement filed by the complainant by way of affidavit during the pre-summoning stage is considered as evidence of the complainant. In the affidavit, the complainant has testified regarding lending of hand loan amount, issuance of cheques, issuance of demand notice and also failure of the accused to pay the cheque's amount. The complainant has produced cheque bearing No.143104 dtd: 20.12.2021 for Rs.35,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.143106 dtd:20.02.2022 for Rs.35,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, BTM Layout branch, Bangalore, alleged to be issued by the accused. Ex.P.1 & 2 stands in the name of the complainant. Ex.P.3 & 4 are the endorsements issued by the bank stating dishonor of Ex.P.1 & 2 cheques, Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.P.6 is the postal receipt, Ex.P.7 is the unserved postal cover, Ex.P.8 & 9 are the IT Return acknowledgments for the year 2023-24 and 2024-25.
10. In the present case, the cheques are dtd: 20.12.2021 and 20.02.2022. Ex.P.3 & 4 shows that cheques in question were dishonored on 25.02.2022 and 22.02.2022. As per Ex.P.3 & 4, it appears that the complainant has presented the cheques within three months from the date of cheques. The notice was issued within the statutory period of time on 14.03.2022. The complainant has filed this complaint on 27.05.2022 i.e., within 30 days from the date of arisal of cause of action. In this way, the complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements of Section 138 and 142 of N. I. SCCH-21 6 C.C. No.15125/2024 Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements of Section 138 and 142 of N. I. Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
11. Point No.2: As discussed at Point No.1, the complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements of Section 138 and 142 of N. I. Act. It is the case of the complainant that, accused is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.70,00,000/- to the complainant and when he was asked to clear the liability, accused issued cheque bearing No.143104 dtd: 20.12.2021 for Rs.35,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.143106 dtd:20.02.2022 for Rs.35,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, BTM Layout branch, Bangalore and the said cheques were presented to his banker Punjab National Bank, Mahadevapura Branch, Bengaluru which is returned with the memo as 'Funds Insufficient' and also issued demand notice on 14.03.2022 and the same was returned unserved as per postal acknowledgment and inspite of which the accused has not paid any amount and hence they have lodged the complaint. In order to prove the same, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 9. Accused not shown any evidence before the Court during cross examination of PW-1 to rebut the presumption available to the Complainant under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
SCCH-21 7 C.C. No.15125/202412. On perusal of the documents at Ex.P.1 to 9, it could be seen that the legal requirements of Section 138 of N. I. Act has been duly complied and the maintainability of the case as discussed in Point No.1 U/Sec.138 of N. I. Act is duly complied.
13. Besides, it is relevant to mention here that during the cross examination of PW.1 one document was confronted by the learned advocate for accused and the same has been accepted by the PW-1, and hence, the said document has been marked as Ex.D.1. It must be noted that a careful reading of Ex.D.1 makes it clear that the accused has admitted the entire case of the complainant. Besides, the Ex.D.1 also depicts that the parties have invented a solution for this case. In other words, the Ex.D.1 shows that the parties have settled their dispute for Rs.70,00,000/-.
14. In my view, once accused admits that he would pay Rs.70,00,000/- to the complainant towards the amount mentioned in the cheque in question then that itself is sufficient to conclude that the accused has admitted his responsibility. Besides, in my view, once the complainant admits that he is ready to receive only Rs.70,00,000/- then that itself is sufficient to conclude that the complainant is entitled to receive only Rs.70,00,000/-. Further, it is well settled that evidentary admission can form basis for adjudicating the question involved in a proceedings in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in decision reported AIR R 1974 Supreme Court page 471 between Nagindas V/s Dalapathram.
SCCH-21 8 C.C. No.15125/202415. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the materials available on record are sufficient to conclude that the accused was liable to pay Rs.70,00,000/- to the complainant and to discharge the said amount the accused has issued the cheques in question to the complainant, but the cheque, so issued has been dishonored because of the insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused herein. Hence, I hold that the materials available on record inspire the confidence of the Court to conclude that the accused has committed the offence u/s 138 of N. I. Act. Hence, Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
16. Point No.3: In my view, once the parties themselves have come forward with a mode of repayment of the loan amount, that too when the complainant and accused themselves have admitted the said mode of payments and quantum of money, I feel it is correct and fair to dispose the matter in the terms of the said Ex.D.1 in the interest of justice and equity. Hence I pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N. I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.65,00,000/- to the complainant.
I award the entire fine amount as compensation to complainant u/s 357 of Cr.P.C.SCCH-21 9 C.C. No.15125/2024
The accused is directed to pay the said compensation amount as per the recitals made in Ex.D1.
In default of payment of this compensation amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Office is directed to furnish the copy of this judgment, free of cost, to the accused.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer, same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17 h day of September-2025) (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
P.W 1 : Smt. Nirmala. K. P List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Cheques
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank Endorsements
Ex.P.5 : Office copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P.6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.7 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 & 9 : IT Return acknowledgments
SCCH-21 10 C.C. No.15125/2024
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-None-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D-1 : Joint Memo.
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACMM,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.