Bangalore District Court
Gunsegaran S vs Murugan on 10 March, 2026
KABC0C0301082018
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT:-
P.S. Santhosh Kumar, M.Com., LL.M.,
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
C.C.NO.58964/2018
COMPLAINANT : MR. GUNASEGARAN S.,
S/o. K.S. Sitharaman,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at No.7/A, 7th A
Main, Vinayaka Nagara,
B Block, Murugesh Palaya,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore-560017.
Mobile No.9480591047.
[By Sri. B. Siddesawara,
Advocate]
Vs.
ACCUSED : SHRI. MURUGAN,
Aged about 45 years,
Badge No.6329, Shop
69062 ALH, Final
Assembly, Helicopter
Division, HAL, Bangalore-
560017.
2
C.C.No.58964/2018
Also R/at. No.GBJ 346,
HAL Marathahalli
Quarters, New Township,
Maratahalli Post,
Bangalore-560037.
[By Sri. Ravi C.S.,
Advocate]
J U D G E M E N T
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
The accused is the Vice-President of Sri. Akshaya Lakshmi Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Limited, a co-operative society operated for the benefit of HAL employees and others. That, on 23.10.2016, the complainant opened an account with the aforesaid Society and purchased shares worth Rs.1,000/- in respect of which the Society had issued share certificate and he was also planning to invest Rs.2,00,000/- with the society. At that time, the 3 C.C.No.58964/2018 accused approached the complainant seeking a handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) assuring the complainant that accused would pay the same interest on the loan as it would accrue if the money were invested in the society. That, Mr. Maruti Bhandari assured to the complainant that accused is a man of good character and honor and would promptly repay the loan sought. That on the accused's assurance and on the assurance of Mr. Maruthi Bhandari, the complainant loaned the accused Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) by way of cash on 23.10.2016. The accused promised to repay the said loan within one year. The accused failed to repay the loan on time as agreed by accused. The complainant accompanied by Mr. Maruthi Bhandari went to accused's house on numerous occasions and sought repayment of the loan, but he failed to repay the loan. After repeated requests, the accused finally issued a cheque bearing No.636754 dated 13.07.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vignana Nagara Branch, in 4 C.C.No.58964/2018 order to discharge his legal liability. The accused assured the complainant that the accused would maintain sufficient balance in his account and that the said cheque would be honored on its due presentation. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 31.07.2021 through his banker State Bank of India, ISRO Branch, Vimanapura post, but it came to be dishonored for the reason "Funds insufficient" vide. bank endorsement dated 16.07.2018. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 14.08.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The said notice was duly served on the accused on 23.08.2018. Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, the documents etc., the court took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of 5 C.C.No.58964/2018 the Negotiable Instruments Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association's case and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel, he was enlarged on court bail, further, substance of plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and also got marked Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 by way of confrontation during the cross-examination of DW1 and also got examined one witness, by name Sri. Maruti Bhandari, as PW2. Upon closure of complainant's side evidence, the court examined the accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating materials appearing against him and the accused got examined himself as DW1 and also got examined two witnesses by name Sri. Ramesh and Sri. Halesh as DW2 and 6 C.C.No.58964/2018 DW3 respectively and got marked Ex.D2 to Ex.D24 and also got marked Ex.D1 by way of confrontation during the cross-examination of PW2 and closed his side.
5. I have gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the following citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant.
1. (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510 between K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. ILR 2006 KAR 2054 between H.S. Srinivasa Vs. Girijamma and other of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
3. 1999 SCC Online Kar 453 between H. Maregowda and etc. Vs. Thippamma and others of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
4. Crl.A.Nos.230-231 of 2019 dated 06.02.2019 between Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. Crl.A.No.271 of 2020 with Crl.A.No.272 of 2020 dated 14.02.2020 between APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shakti International Fashiion Linkers & others of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7C.C.No.58964/2018
6. Crl.A.No.123 of 2021 dated 10.02.2021 between M/s. Kalamani Tex & Another Vs. P. Balasubramanian of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 739 between Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corpn. Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. Indian Technologists & Engineers (Electronics)(P) Ltd. and another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. Crl.A.No.1020 of 2010 dated 07.05.2010 between Rangappa Vs. Mohan of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I have gone through the following citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused.
1. (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 86 between Vijay Vs. Laxman and another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 39 between M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3. (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 54 between Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
4. (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441 between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 294 between Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8C.C.No.58964/2018
6. (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 667 between Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI through its Director of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 99 between K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 between Veerayya Vs. G.K. Madivalar of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
9. ILR 2006 KAR 3579 between M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. Vs. Umesh Sharma and another of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
10. 2010 (2) DCR 80 between Matheson Bonsanquet Vs. K.V. Manjunatha of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Perused the materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: As per final order, 9 C.C.No.58964/2018 for the following, R E A S O N S
8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the materials available on record. The complainant, who has been examined as PW1, has reiterated the facts stated in his complaint in his chief examination also and in addition to it, he has produced Ex.P1 to 12.
9. Ex.P1 is the original cheque bearing No.636754 dated 13.07.2018 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vignana Nagar Branch, K.H. Main Road, Bangalore- 560075, said to have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. Ex.P2 is the bank return memo dated 16.07.2018 said to have been issued by the complainant's banker which goes to show that the cheque in question was dishonored for the reason "Funds insufficient". Ex.P3 is the copy of the legal notice dated 14.08.2018 said to have been sent by the complainant to the accused intimating the fact of dishonor of the cheque to the accused and demanding 10 C.C.No.58964/2018 payment of cheque amount. Ex.P4 is the two postal receipts for having sent legal notice to the accused. Ex.P5 is the speed post acknowledgment which goes to show that the legal notice was served on the accused. Ex.P6 is the returned postal cover which goes to show that it was returned for the reason addressee always absent during delivery time. Ex.P7 is the reply notice dated 04.09.2018. Ex.P8 is the Share certificate said to have been issued by Sri. Akshaya Lakshmi Sowhardha Credit Co-operative Limited in favour of the complainant. Ex.P9 is the certificate issued by ISRO satellite center, Bangalore, which goes to show that the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.23,88,294/- was paid to the complainant on his superannuation on 31.08.2014. Ex.P10 is the letter dated 19.09.2018 issued by ELROY chits Private Limited to the accused calling upon him to pay the due of Rs.5,84,395/- towards the chit No.13 and 14 subscribed by the accused. Ex.P11 is the notice dated 24.08.2017 issued by ELROY chits Private Limited to the accused calling upon him to pay the due of 11 C.C.No.58964/2018 Rs.1,50,000/- towards the chit No.13 and 14 subscribed by the accused. Ex.P12 is the final notice dated 10.09.2017 issued by Lakshmi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha to the accused demanding repayment of loan of Rs.50,000/-.
10. It is relevant to mention here that during the cross-examination of the accused, he has categorically admitted that the cheque in question pertains to his account and that the signature on the cheque in question belongs to him. Such being the case, once the accused accepts and admits that the cheque in question pertains to him and that the signature on the cheque in question pertains to him, the initial presumptions as contemplated U/S 139 of the N.I. Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant, however, the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumptions as held in the case of Sri Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898.
12C.C.No.58964/2018
11. Once the presumptions U/S 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumptions by adducing cogent evidence in support of his defence. It is relevant to mention here that it is the specific defence of the accused that he has issued the cheque in question as security towards the loan borrowed by one Sri. Halesh with Janaspandana chits private Limited. The said Sri. Halesh and Sri. Marthi Bhandari were working in different departments in HAL Aerospace Division and they colluding each other have issued the cheque in question to the complainant and filed this false case against him as there were differences arose between them in the society election. The accused has no financial transaction whatsoever with the complainant. He has never issued any cheque to the complainant for the handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant is a stranger to him. Further the accused has taken further defence that he had stood surety for Sri. Thimmaiah also in Janaspandana Chits Private Limited and upon said Sri. Thimmaiah and 13 C.C.No.58964/2018 Sri. Halesh becoming defaulters, notices were issued to the accused and said chit company also filed cheque bounce cases against Sri. Halesh and Sri. Thimmaiah. It is relevant to mention here that the accused who has deposed before this court that the complainant is stranger to him, at the first instance in his reply notice has not stated the said fact. Further it could be seen that Ex.P8 share certificate pertaining to the complainant issued by Akshaya Lakshmi Credit Co-operative Limited has also been signed by the accused as its Vice-President and the said fact has also been admitted by the accused in his cross- examination. Further the accused who has been examined as DW1 has also admitted in his cross- examination that it was his obligation and duty to verify the contents of the share certificate before signing it and he has also admitted that before issuing share certificate the said society would normally verify the relevant documents and examine the person who intends to deposit personally. The said admission of the accused and the recitals of the reply notice at 14 C.C.No.58964/2018 Ex.P8 clearly falsifies the defence of the accused that the complainant is stranger to him. Further it is relevant to mention here that the complainant has categorically denied each and every suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused during his cross-examination regarding the defence of the accused that he has misused the cheque in question of the accused issued by him towards security for the loan borrowed by Sri. Halesh with Janaspandana Chits Private Limited. It is further relevant to mention here that in order to prove the defence that the accused had issued the cheque in question to said Janaspandana Chits Private Limited as security for the loan of Sri. Halesh, he has examined said Sri. Halesh before this court as DW3. It is relevant to mention here that the said witness whom the accused had summoned and examined on his behalf totally turned hostile in the case of the accused stating that he does not know anything about this case and he does not know the complainant and that he knows the accused and at that stage, the witness was treated hostile by 15 C.C.No.58964/2018 the accused and he was cross-examined and in the cross-examination of DW3 also, DW3 categorically denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused that while receiving the bid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- pertaining to Ticket No.17 of the chit group 1024, he had obtained two cheques, copies of Aadhar card and PAN card from the accused and further DW3 categorically denied the suggestion that he had obtained two cheques of the accused towards security. Further DW3 has also categorically denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused that there arose differences between him and the accused and hence, by issuing one of the said two cheques to the complainant he has filed this false complaint. Further during the cross-examination of DW3 by the learned counsel for the complainant, he has admitted categorically that according to the surety format cheques would not be received and that the accused has not issued any of his cheques towards surety for him. Further the accused has also summoned the Manager of Janaspandana Chits Fund 16 C.C.No.58964/2018 by name Sri. Ramesh who has been examined as DW2 and the said witness has also turned hostile to the case of the accused. Further DW2 during his cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused has categorically denied that they collected cheques from the accused and also stated that the accused did not furnish any documents to them at the time of offering him as surety to the said Sri. Halesh. Further the DW1 has also produced request letters at Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 dated 05.09.2019 and Ex.D16 dated 21.01.2024 given to the Janaspandana Chits Private Limited asking them to return the surety documents given by him towards the chits subscribed by said Sri. Halesh and one Sri. M.K. Thimmaiah and the said letter also does not depict what were the surety documents he had given to the chit fund towards security for the said chits and the said document particularly does not depict the number of the cheque in question. Further Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 being the notices issued by the said chit fund to said Sri. Halesh and Sri. Thimmaiah demanding the defaulted 17 C.C.No.58964/2018 chit amount, they are of no use to establish the defence of the accused and similarly Ex.D10 and Ex.D11 which are the notices said to have been issued by the said chit fund to the said persons along with sureties, among whom the accused is also one, are also of no use to establish the defence of the accused as they also did not contain any details regarding the surety documents furnished by the accused in relation to due by them. Further it is relevant to mention here that the accused though taken such defence, he did not lodge any police complaint either against the complainant or against the said Janaspandana Chit Fund or against Sri. Halesh at the earliest point of time and till today for the best reasons know to him and the said fact has also been admitted by the accused during his cross-examination. However, as per Ex.D18 and Ex.D19, the accused has filed a police complaint against said Sri. Thimmaiah and Janaspandana Chits India Private Limited for not returning the surety documents. The said documents is also of no use to the accused since DW2 has 18 C.C.No.58964/2018 categorically stated that they did not collect any cheques towards security for the loan of said Sri. Halesh from the accused. Further it could be seen that any document produced by the accused at Ex.D1 to Ex.D24 does not go to show that the accused has issued the cheque in question as security towards the chit of Sri. Halesh. On the other hand, the complainant also got examined one witness as PW2 who is said to be present while complainant advancing the alleged loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and PW2 has categorically supported the case of the complainant stating that on his assurance the complainant lent the alleged loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash on 23.10.2016 and in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused nothing contrary to the said fact has been elicited. Further the accused has taken a defence that as the date of lending the alleged loan is stated to be on 23.10.2016, which was Sunday, the said Akshaya Souhardha Credit Co-operative Society was not at all operating on that day and hence, there is no 19 C.C.No.58964/2018 possibility of the complainant visiting the said society to enroll as its member and lending the alleged money to the accused in the presence of PW2. But, PW1 and PW2 both have categorically stated that though it was Sunday, the society was opened and working and the complainant visited the society on that day and share certificate has been issued as per Ex.P8 in his favour and also on that day the complainant lent the alleged money to the accused on the assurance of PW2. The accused who has taken a defence that there was no possibility of issuing share certificate as per Ex.P8 on 23.10.2016 has taken a contrary further defence that the complainant has altered the said date i.e., 28.10.2016 as 23.10.2016 and in that respect also the accused did not adduce any cogent evidence and further PW1 has categorically denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the complainant to that effect during his cross-examination. Further it is relevant to mention here that the accused has taken a defence that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend 20 C.C.No.58964/2018 the alleged money which cannot be accepted as because, admittedly the complainant is an employee of ISRO, who retired in the year 2014 and he has also produced Ex.P9 which goes to show that he had received terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.23,88,294/-. Further it is relevant to mention here that during the course of cross-examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the accused has made a suggestion to the effect that the complainant had used all his retirement money for his personal and family necessities and in that respect also the accused did not adduce any cogent evidence. Further merely because the complainant, PW2 and said Sri. Halesh and Sri. Thimmaiah were working in the same department alone cannot be a ground to believe the defence of the accused in any angle in the above facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Further it is relevant to mention here that the above said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused noway helps the accused to establish his specific defence. However, keeping in mind the settled 21 C.C.No.58964/2018 principles of law laid down in the above said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the accused regarding drawing of presumptions, standard of proof required for the parties to establish their case, etc., and considering the entire materials on record, in my opinion, the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the complainant and on the other hand, the complainant has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, I am of the opinion that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. It is relevant to mention here that the accused having issued cheque at Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant has failed to pay the cheque amount and hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated for the delay caused by the accused in its repayment.
22C.C.No.58964/2018 Further the punishment prescribed for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), I am of the opinion that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and out of the said amount, it seems to be proper to award a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- as compensation to the complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State towards expenses. With these observations, my findings on Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
23 C.C.No.58964/2018 O R D E R Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-. In default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/-
shall be paid to the State towards expenses and remaining amount of Rs.3,95,000/- to the complainant as compensation as per the provisions of Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C..
Further, it is made clear that in view of proviso to Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused would not be absolved from his liability to pay compensation amount of Rs.3,95,000/- awarded u/s. 357 of Cr.P.C.
24C.C.No.58964/2018 even if he undergoes the default sentence.
The bail bond and cash security of the accused stand hereby continued till the appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwit h.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, directly over Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10h day of March 2026) (P.S. Santhosh Kumar), XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.
A N N E X U R E
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW1 : Mr. Gunasegaran S. PW2 : Mr. Maruti Bhandari
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank return memo
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.4 : Two Postal receipts
Ex.P.5 : Speed post acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 : Returned postal cover
Ex.P.6(a) : Returned postal cover opened
25
C.C.No.58964/2018
in the open court and notice
therein marked
Ex.P.7 : Reply notice
Ex.P.8 : Share certificate
Ex.P.9 : Letter issued by ISRO
Ex.P.10 to 12 : Notices
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
DW1 : Mr. Murugan DW2 : Mr. Ramesh DW3 : Mr. Halesh
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D1 : Xerox copy of writings on
paper dated 27.06.2016
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of complaint
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.D4 : Certified copy of mahazar
Ex.D5 : Certified copy of charge sheet
in C.C.No.10236/2021
Ex.D6 & 7 : Letters dated 05.09.2019 ( 2 in number) Ex.D8 & 9 : Two notices dated 03.05.2018 and 04.01.2019 Ex.D10 & : Two office copies of the legal 11 notices Ex.D12 : Share certificate Ex.D13 : Receipt 26 C.C.No.58964/2018 Ex.D14 : Share certificate Ex.D15 : Receipt Ex.D16 : Letter dated 21.01.2024 said to have been issued by Janaspandana Chits Ex.D17 : Certificate issued by Janaspandana Chits Ex.D18 : Copy of police complaint Ex.D19 : Police acknowledgment Ex.D20 : Certificate issued by Janaspandana Chits Ex.D21 : Copy of RTI form along with postal receipt Ex.D22 : Counter foil of postal order Ex.D23 : Original passbook Ex.D24 : Original passbook (P.S. Santhosh Kumar), XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.