Bangalore District Court
Prakash vs Bhaskar on 10 March, 2026
KABC030430072023
IN THE COURT OF LI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Sri. KRISHNA. J, B.A., LL.B.,
LI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026
C.C. No.24297/2023
COMPLAINANT: Sri. Prakash,
S/o Puttaswamy,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at 21st 10th main, 3rd Cross,
NGR Layout, Roopena Agrahara,
Bommanahalli, Bengaluru-560068.
(Reptd. By: N. Padmavathi., Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: Mr. Bhaskar,
S/o. Pakirappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at # 169,NGR Layout,
Roopena Agrahara,
Bommanahalli, Bengaluru-560068.
Mobile No: 9008859554.
(Reptd. By: Sri. M.V. Rajanna., Advocate)
:JUDGMENT:
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused. 2 C.C.No.24297/2023
The brief case of the complainant is as hereunder:-
2. The accused is a brother in law (cousin sister's husband) of the complainant and they were cordial in relationship, on 20.01.2023 the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) from the complainant to meet his urgent necessities and promised to repay the same within five months. In the month of may 2023 the complainant demanded for repayment, in reply accused issued a cheque bearing No.000005 dated 20.05.2023 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn at HDFC Bank, Green Glen Layout, Bellandur, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant towards repayment. The cheque presented for encashment on 16.06.2023 by the complainant through his banker Canara Bank, Bommanahalli Branch, Bengaluru, the cheque return unpaid for the reason "Drawers Signature Differs" on 17.06.2023. Then complainant issued a notice on 03.07.2023 by RPAD calling the accused to pay the cheque amount and the notice served personally on 06.07.2023, However, the accused fails to pay the cheque amount. Hence the complaint.3 C.C.No.24297/2023
3. The complainant filed the complaint on 01.08.2023 before 19th ACJM Bengaluru. On the same day, the complainant filed his sworn statement affidavit, examined as PW1 and produced 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to
5. The court perused the sworn statement and documents, took cognizance, ordered to register a criminal case and proceeded to issue summons against the accused. The accused appeared on 06.06.2024 obtained bail, on the same day plea of accused recorded, accused pleaded not guilty, claims to have defense, further statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded, the accused submitted he has defence evidence, filed application U/Sec 145(2) of NI Act, seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant, application allowed and matter posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. Subsequently, the case is transferred to this court on 02.12.2025 vide special notification No.ADM/1/22/2025 of Hon'ble CJM Bengaluru City. Before this court the P.W.1 is fully cross examined, then ststement of accused under sec.313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.01.2026 and accused submitted no defense evidence. Matter posted for arguments, heard the arguments of complainant and accused. 4 C.C.No.24297/2023
4. Perused the records, on perusal of record, and upon hearing of arguments of both side, the court raised the following points for consideration.
POINTS
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.01.2023, for repayment issued cheque bearing No.000005 drawn at HDFC Bank, Green Glen Layout, Bellandur Branch, Bangalore, dated 20.05.2023, for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, the cheque presented for encashment, returned unpaid with an endorsement "Drawers Signature Differs" on 17.06.2023 same is intimated to the accused by notice on 03.07.2023 and demanding cheque amount, despite service of notice accused fails to make payment thereby accused has committed the offence P/U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act?
2) What Order?
5. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
6. Point No.1: The complainant to prove it's case examined himself as P.W.1, he filed affidavit in lieu of sworn statement/examination in chief, wherein, he reiterated the averments of the complaint. As a documentary evidence produced in all documents as Ex.P.1 to 5.
5 C.C.No.24297/2023
7. The Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No.000005 drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd.,, Green Glen Layout, Bellandur Branch, Bengaluru, dated 20.05.2023, for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in the name of complainant. The accused is not disputing the cheque drawn from the account maintained by him, he disputed the signature find on the cheque and contended the cheque was issued to one Yogeshwari, not to the complainant, as it that be.
8. The Ex.P.2 cheque return memo discloses the cheque Ex.P.1 on presentation for encashment return unpaid for the reason "Drawer's signature differs" on 17.06.2023. It is not the case of the accused that he had sufficient balance to honour the cheque to the date of cheque of to the date of Ex.P.2.
9. The Ex.P3 office copy of the legal notice dated 03.07.2023, the Ex.P.4 postal receipt and the Ex.P.5 Postal tracking consignment, they discloses complainant issued the notice to the accused demanding cheque amount within 30 days from the date of dishonor of cheque Ex.P.1. the accused has contended the notice sent to wrong address and not served on him, as it that be.
6 C.C.No.24297/2023
10. The complainant in his cross examination deposed that the address, "No.176, 3rd cross, Viratnagar Main Road, NGR Layout, Roopena Agrahara, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru", is the address of accused and accused resided their for 2-3 year but he do not know from which year to which year accused resided in the aforementioned address. The accused resided in the address shown in the cause title (the address to which the notice Ex.P.3 is sent) in the year 2018 as tenant under Ramakrishna who is the owner. Sister of Ramakrishna Smt. Shantipriya had filed a police complainant against accused and his wife under Prevention of Atrocities against SC and ST act., then accused vacated the said house in the year 2019 and shifted his residence to the distance at 3-4 street from the said house. From 2019 the accused resided in different houses as tenant. He has sent the notice to the address of Ramakrishna's house and he do not know about the acknowledgment having received the notice by accused or his wife. Further he deposed he is running a mobile currency recharge shop, DTH sales and money transfer business. He is filing income tax returns, accused asked for money on 10/11.01.2023 for the first time and he paid the amount on 20.01.2023, he has not secured any 7 C.C.No.24297/2023 document for security at the time of lending the amount. It is suggested by the advocate for accused that the accused and one Yogeshwari had transaction and accused had issued a unsigned blank cheque to her, the complainant and Yogeshwari together had transaction, in that proximity the complainant received the cheque from Yogeshwari and forged the signature of accused, filed false case, it is denied by the complainant/P.W.1.
11. The advocate of complainant argued that the accused admitted the cheque drawn from the account maintained by him, he has disputed the signature find on the cheque. On perusal of vakalath filed on behalf of accused and bail bond execute by accused in the case discloses the signature find on the vakalath and bail bond is similar to the signature find on the cheque. The signature find on plea and 313 statement are different to vakalath and bail bond. It clearly shows the accused intentionally changed the signature time and again to create an impression, the signature find on the cheque is not of his own. Therefore, the case of the accused that the signature find on the cheque is not of his own, is not acceptable. It is further argued as per Ex.P.5 postal track 8 C.C.No.24297/2023 consignment the notice Ex.P.3 is duly served on accused, thereby, the complainant has complied proviso (B) of sec. 138 of NI Act. Since the accused has admitted the cheque drawn from the account maintained by him and intentionally he has changed the signature on the cheque, it is clear the cheque issued for legally recoverable debt and discharge of liability owed towards complainant and it is a matter of presumption U/Sec. 139 of NI Act. To rebut such presumption accused contended he has issued unsigned blank cheque to one Yogeshwari for a transaction he had with her but to prove the transaction that he had with her no material his placed before the court. Further it is the case of the accused, the complainant had a transaction with Yogeshwari and received cheque from Yogeshwari, to prove the said contention also no material is placed before the court, therefore, the presumption provided U/Sec. 139 of NI Act stands unrebutted and takes the place of proof. Accordingly prays to convict the accused.
12. Advocate for accused argued that the cheque return memo Ex.P.2 discloses drawer's signature differs, to prove signature find on the cheque is of accused no 9 C.C.No.24297/2023 evidence is brought on record. The signature find on the cheque forged one and not of accused, therefore, the Ex.P.1 is a invalid instrument. It is further argued the Ex.P.3 demand notice is sent to wrong address is admitted by the complainant in his evidence. According to the complainant the accused vacated the address mentioned in the notice in the year 2019 and notice sent in the year 2023. Therefore the complaint knowingly sent the notice to a wrong address thereby failed to comply proviso (B) of Sec. 138 of NI Act., which is mandatory to constitute an offence U/Sec. 138 of NI Act. It is further argued the complainant fails to prove when he lend the amount to the accused and the manner in which he has lend the amount to the accused by producing any witness who witnessed the transaction thereby fails to prove the loan transaction. The complainant has received the cheque from Yogeshwari with whom the accused had given the unsigned blank cheque, forged the signature of accused and filed false case. Hence prays to acquit the accused.
13. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence and upon hearing of the arguments of accused and complainant, the cheque Ex.P.1 drawn from the account 10 C.C.No.24297/2023 maintained by the accused is not in dispute. The cheque Ex.P.1 on presentation for encashment return unpaid for the reason "Drawers Signature Differs". It is not a case of the accused as on the date of cheque Ex.P.1 or to the date of Ex.P.2 he had sufficient balance in his account. It is the case of the accused that signature find on the cheque is not of his own and it is forged one. At this stage it is relevant to note about the signatures of accused available in the record. Firstly vakalath filed by the advocate for accused on 13.03.2024 in the case, discloses the accused has put his signature similar to the signature find on the cheque. Secondly, signature find on the plea recorded on 06.06.2024 discloses accused has put his signature in big letter english alphabets with identifiable space between each letter. Thirdly, in 313 Cr.P.C., statement recorded on 22.01.2026 wherein accused put his signature in Kannada and lastly in bail bond executed by accused on 06.06.2024 wherein he put his signature in English almost similar to the signature find on the cheque. On perusal of the said signatures of accused it is clear that accused deliberately after filing the vakalath changed the signature before the court, prior to filing the vakalath and at the time of filing the vakalath he was putting his signature similar to the 11 C.C.No.24297/2023 signature find on the cheque. Subsequently the accused with a malafide intention has changed the signature. May be with same malafide intention before issuing the cheque he has put the signature on cheque differing from the signature available with the bank, therefore the banker has given memo stating Drawer's signature differs. Hence, the case of the accused that the signature find on the cheque is forged one is not acceptable.
14. The accused has contended the complainant in his cross-examination admitted the address to which notice Ex.P.3 is issued is vacated by accused in the year 2019, therefore, the complainant fails to comply Sec.139 proviso (B) of NI Act. It is true the complainant in is cross- examination admitted the accused was resided in the address mentioned in the notice as a tenant and one Ramakrishna was the owner of the house, sister of Ramakrishna Smt. Shanthipriya had filed a complaint against accused and his family members alleging an offence punishable under prevention of Atrocities against SC and ST Act., subsequently in the year 2019 accused has vacated the address. The oral evidence of complainant clearly discloses to the date of issuance of notice accused 12 C.C.No.24297/2023 was not in the address and it was very much in the knowledge of complainant. Therefore, one can infer that the notice is issued to the address at which accused is not residing. The complainant to establish the service of notice relied on Ex.P.5 postal track consignment which discloses the registered post booked on 03.07.2023 at post office in same on located district office building. Bengaluru Bommanahalli Post office received the 04.07.2023, on 04.07.2023 an attempt was made to deliver the post to the addressee but not delivered for the reason addressee cannot be located. On 05.07.2023 again attempt was made to serve the post but not served due to insufficient address. On 05.07.2023 it was on hold for the reason addressee cannot be located. Finally on 06.07.2023 it is found delivered to the addressee. The Ex.P.5 discloses 3 statements one is addressee cannot be located, 2nd one is insufficient and 3rd one is delivered. Once it is mentioned insufficient address and addressee cannot be located how it is served on the addressee is the question. It is not answered by the complainant. It is relevant to note a specific question is put to the Pw.l about the acknowledgment having served the registered post acknowledgment due on accused, in reply complainant 13 C.C.No.24297/2023 pleads ignorance. In the light of admission by the Pw.1 that to the date of issuance of notice the accused was not residing in the address mentioned in the notice, in the absence of postal acknowledgment having served the notice on accused in the address mentioned in the notice and three contrary informations available in Ex.P.5, with respect to service of notice the Ex.P.5 is not acceptable. Therefore it is clear the notice is sent to wrong address knowingly that accused is not residing in the address. Thereby complainant fails to comply Proviso (B) of Sec. 138 of NI Act which is mandatory hence complaint must fail.
15. The accused has given the cheque to Yogeswari and the complainant received the same, filed the false case is not acceptable, because accused fails to place any material before the court to show he had transaction with Yogeshwari and issued the cheque Ex.P.1 in favour of Yogeshwari, he complainant having fails to comply proviso (B) Sec.138 of NI Act., the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
15. Point No.2: For the foregoing reasons discussed on points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:- 14 C.C.No.24297/2023
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act., The bail bond executed by the accused will be discharged after appeal period is over and accused may get release the cash security amount after appeal period is over. (Directly dictated to Stenographer on computer, computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of March 2026) (KRISHNA.J) LI ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Sri. Prakash LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Cheques Returning Memo
Ex.P-3 : Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P-5 : Track consignment
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil (KRISHNA.J) LI ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.15 C.C.No.24297/2023
The complainant filed the complaint on 13.09.2022 before 19th ACJM Bengaluru, the said court has taken the cognizance of the case and posted the matter for sworn statement. Later on 24.11.2022 the complainant filed an application seeking an amendment to the complaint. In the amendment application, the complainant sought to remove the Cheque No. 608096 Dated 04.02.2022 for ₹ 1,00,000 drawn in the name of complainant at Axis Bank Ltd., Electronic city Branch, Bengaluru for the reason After dishonour of the said cheque, no notice under proviso (b) of Section 138 of NI Act is issued. The application was allowed on 13.02.2023 and the complainant has amended the complaint. The sworn statement of complainant recorded on 18.07.2023, the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of sworn statement, examined as PW1, produced five documents as Exhibit P1 to P5. On perusal of sworn statement and documents, the court ordered to register criminal case against accused and proceeded to issue summons. The accused in response to the summons appeared on 29.04.2024 obtained bail. On the same day plea of accused was recorded. He pleads not guilty, claims to have defence. On 24.11.2025 the statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC recorded, accused denied all the incriminating evidence find against him. Despite several opportunities provided, accused fails to lead defence evidence, hence defence evidence taken as nill.
The complainant in his cross-examination deposed no agreement entered between himself and accused with respect to loan transaction. He might have written the details of amounts in the complaint and notice, given on each date to the accused. (In fact, 16 C.C.No.24297/2023 no such details find in the notice or complaint) He has produced documents to show he has transferred the amount to the accused account. (no such document is produced) The PW1 further deposed accused was acted as a middleman while complainant's wife purchasing a site. The advocate for accused suggested to the complainant/PW1 during the cross-examination that on 15.06.2020 an amount of ₹ 89,900/-, on 17.06.2020 an amount of ₹ 26,200/- and ₹ 35,000/-, on 27.07.2020 an amount of ₹30,000/- and ₹ 40,000/-, on 28.08.2020 an amount of ₹ 1,27,000/- and on 06.07.2020 an amount of ₹ 50,000/- in total ₹ 3,98,000/- is transferred to the account of Complainat's wife held at Canara Bank from the account of accused held at ICICI Bank, it is denied by the complainant/PW1. It is further suggested by the advocate for accused to PW1/complainant that in the month of June 2020, complainant and his wife took two cheques of accused, it is denied by PW1. It is further suggested that the entire amount payable to the complainant by the accused is paid by transferring the amount to the account of complainant's wife, It is denied by the PW1. It is specifically asked by the advocate for accused to PW1 that notice Exhibit P3 is not served on accused. In reply PW1 stated since the accused vacated the address notice not served on him.
Advocate for complainant argued that the cheque drawn from the account maintained by the accused and signature signed find on the cheque is of accused is not in dispute. Further the very suggestion put to the complainant during the cross examination by the advocate for accused that the entire amount payable to the complainant is paid by transferring the amount to the complainant's wife account would suggest that accused was due to the complainant. Therefore, the presumption provided under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act., that the cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt or discharge of liability is in favour of the complainant. To rebut the presumption the accused has to place probable defence. In the case accused failed to do so. The accused in his defence contended he has paid the entire amount by transferring the amount from his account to the account of complainant's wife, but he fails to produce the bank transaction statement of his account to evidence the transfer of the amounts to the account of complainant's wife. Therefore, the defence of the accused is not acceptable. With respect to service of notice the Exhibit P5 is sufficient, which shows notice served on address is evident from Exhibit P5. It is not the case of the accused that the address mentioned in notice is incorrect or wrong. Therefore presumption under Section 27 of general 17 C.C.No.24297/2023 clauese act is in favour of complainant and to rebut the same no evidence is brought on record.
The accused in his argument submitted the complainan in the complaint asserted he has transferred the amount by way of NEFT but to evidence the same, no document is placed before the court. Therefore, The complainant has failed to prove the alleged loan transaction and no such loan transaction has took place. Even after specific questions put to the complainant, he fails to produce the account statement of his wife bank account and he withheld the same. Therefore, an adverse inference may be drawn against complainant having withold the best evidence. The complainant and his wife, even after payment of loan amount, have misused the cheques taken for security and filed the false case. The complainant initially filed the complaint on two cheques. Subsequently withdrawn the averments with respect to one cheque stating he has mistakenly presented the cheque. It is clear that the complainant has misused the cheque. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.
On perusal of oral and documentary evidence and upon hearing of the advocate for both, the Cheque Exhibit P1 drawn from the account maintained by the accused and signature find on the cheque is of accused is not in dispute. Further, it is relevant to note the advocate for accused by putting a suggestion to the P.W.1 that the accused has repaid the entire amount by transferring the amount to the complainant wife's account, discloses the accused had availed loan from the complainant. Therefore, the presumption provided under Section 139 of NI Act that the cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt or discharge of liability, that is for repayment of loan in the case is in favour of complainant. To rebut the presumption, the accused has to place probable defence, in the case accused has taken a defence that he repaid the entire loan amount by transferring the amount to the account of complainant's wife from his account, but to evidence the transfer of amount, no document is placed before the court. When accused is specifically suggested to PW1 that he has transferred the amount to the complainant's wife's account from his account he could have produced his own account statement to evidence the transfer of amounts, but he fails to do so, therefore, the court has no reason to believe the case of accused. The arguments of accused that complainant fails to produce his wife's account details is not tenable because the accused has his own account statement to evidence the transfer of amount and it is his burden to show the same. Hence, the defence of the accused that he has repaid the loan amount is not acceptable. 18 C.C.No.24297/2023 The accused argued that initially complainant filed the complaint with respect to two cheques. Subsequently he deleted the averments with respect to one cheque stating he has mistakenly presented the cheque, It shows he is filing false case. Such argument is not acceptable. It is true that complainant initially filed the complaint based on two cheques. Subsequently he withdrawn the averments with respect to one cheque as stated supra. The reason for with drawing the averments with respect to one cheque is after dishonour of cheque bearing No. 608097 notice contemplated under Proviso B of Section 138 of NI Act was not issued and in the absence of notice, the offence could not be constituted.
As stated supra, the accused admitted that he had availed loan and issued cheques for security. But he fails to prove that he repaid the loan amount. Therefore the Cheque Exhibit P1 is issued for repayment of loan/ discharge of liability, can be inferred and complainant has established the same. Thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Act.