Delhi District Court
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Hira on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TANMAY BATHAM,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NI ACT - 03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI
JUDGMENT
Complaint Case No. 849/2019
Title of the case HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira
Name of the Complainant HDFC Bank Ltd. through its AR Mr.
Rajeev Kumar
Name of the Accused Hira
Date of Institution 29.01.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment 28.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026
Offence complained of Under Section 25 of The Payment and
Settlement Systems Act, 2007
Offence charged with Under Section 25 of The Payment and
Settlement Systems Act, 2007
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Argued by: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Vishnu Dutt, Ld. Counsels for the Complainant.
Mr. Ankit Kothari, Ld. Counsel for the Accused.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant HDFC Bank Ltd. through its AR Mr. Rajeev Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") against the accused Ms. Hira (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") under Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:47:54 +0530 Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "PASA"). The substance of allegations of the complainant is that the accused availed a credit card facility from the complainant under credit card number 000545964XXXXXX1485 (AAN 0001014610006171480). That the accused failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the card member agreement and did not make the payment of outstanding amount in time, despite repeated requests, reminders, and personal visits by the complainant. That towards the discharge of Total Amount Due on the said Card the accused had agreed to pay the same to the complainant through direct debit facility, and in this regard had also issued a standing instruction to the complaint to debit the total amount due as per credit card account statement every month, from his bank account maintained with the complainant. That when the complaint executed the Electronic Clearing Scheme (ECS) / Direct Debit Facility towards the total amount due in his credit card account, the same was returned, dishonoured. The details of the ECS/ Direct Debit Facility bouncing as follows:
HDFC Bank A/c Amount Reason for dis- Date of ECS/ Date of bounc-
Number of ECS honour Auto Debit ing
50200013223510 Rs. Insufficient Funds 08.12.2018 08.12.2018
82,023/-
That the accused, despite multiple demands, did not make the payment. That the complainant then issued legal demand notice dated 19.12.2018 u/s 25 of the PASA, through his counsel upon the accused, which was sent through registered post and speed post, which was duly served. That despite the passage of stipulated time period, the accused did not honour her legal liability against the dishonoured ECS.
Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:47:42 +0530 NOTICE U/S 251 CRPC
2. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, she was summoned to face trial vide order dated 04.02.2019 and upon her appearance, a notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") was served on her on 16.08.2019. In reply to the notice of accusation, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. She stated that she has not filled any automatic debit instruction and that she has not signed any bank document related to the automatic debit instruction. She further refused receiving any legal demand notice, however, stated that the address on the legal demand notice is correct. The accused denied her signature on the bank documents and stated that she had never applied for any card from the bank.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, during the trial, in the Complainant's Evidence (hereinafter referred to as "CE"), the complainant has led both oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant himself stepped in the witness box as CW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied on following documents:
No. Exhibits Title of the Document
1 Ex. CW1/1 (OSR) Power Of Attorney
2 Ex. CW1/2 Dishonoured Memo
3 Ex. CW1/3 Legal Demand Notice
4 Ex. CW1/4 Postal Receipts
Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 3 of 17
Digitally signed
by TANMAY
TANMAY BATHAM
BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12
16:47:34 +0530
No. Exhibits Title of the Document
5 Ex. CW1/5 Tracking Reports
6 Mark A Direct Debit Instruction
Complainant was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and all the exculpatory suggestions put to complainant were duly denied by him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
4. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused stated that she has not taken any credit card from the complainant and has not signed the documents for taking the credit card and document mark A as well. She further went ahead and said that she has also not opened any account with the complainant. She denied signing any document and alleged that the complainant has filed a false case. She also denied receiving any legal demand notice.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
5. Thereafter, the accused led her defence evidence whereby, she led oral evidence of herself as DW-1. and also led documentary evidence, being the Aadhar Card exhibited as Ex. DW1/X5. All the incriminating suggestions put to the accused were duly denied by her.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
6. The final arguments were heard in the matter and I have heard the ld. counsels appearing for the parties and I have given my thoughtful Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:47:25 +0530 consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. Following arguments have been advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant:
a) That all the ingredients of the offence u/s 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 are fulfilled in the present case.
b) That the accused has failed to produce any supporting document in support of her claim regarding her estranged husband and him misusing her credentials.
c) That the accused has even admitted buying insurance policy from the said credit card which further shows her ownership of the credit card. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
8. Per contra, ld. counsel for the accused has submitted a set of written arguments and has argued on the following grounds:
a) That the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the husband of the accused, who is now estranged, has fraudulently misused her identity and forged her signatures.
b) That the card has been issued to a different name than hers. That police complaints regarding the misuse of her documents by her husband have been filed.
c) That the verification call conducted by the complainant does not contains her voice and the credentials contacted thereupon belong to her husband. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted.
Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:47:17 +0530 INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
9. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to examine the legal requirements that both parties must meet before delving into the peculiar facts of the present case. The complainant must satisfy certain essential components to make out the offence under section 25 of the PASA. For clarity on this point, the relevant provision is being reproduced below: -
25. Dishonour of electronic funds transfer for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--
(1) Where an electronic funds transfer initiated by a person from an account maintained by him cannot be executed on the ground that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the transfer instruction or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with a bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the electronic funds transfer, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a)the electronic funds transfer was initiated for payment of any amount of money to another person for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(b) the electronic funds transfer was initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the system provider;
(c) the beneficiary makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the person initiating the electronic funds transfer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank concerned regarding the dishonour of the electronic funds transfer; and
(d) the person initiating the electronic funds transfer fails to make the payment of the said money to the beneficiary within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
(2) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.12
16:47:07
+0530
electronic funds transfer was initiated for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(3) It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under sub-
section (1) that the person, who initiated the electronic funds transfer through an instruction, authorisation, order or agreement, did not have reason to believe at the time of such instruction, authorisation, order or agreement that the credit of his account is insufficient to effect the electronic funds transfer.
(4) The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this section, on production of a communication from the bank denoting the dishonour of electronic funds transfer, presume the fact of dishonour of such electronic funds transfer, unless and until such fact is disproved.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) shall apply to the dishonour of electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit. Explanation --For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability, as the case may be.
10. Further, the term "electronic funds transfer" has been defined u/s 2 (c) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 which is reproduced as under:
Sec 2 (c): "electronic funds transfer" means any transfer of funds which is initiated by a person by way of instruction, authorization or order to a bank to debit or credit an account maintained with that bank through electronic means and includes point of sale transfers; automated teller machine transactions, direct deposits or withdrawal of funds, transfers initiated by telephone, internet and, card payment.
11. It is pertinent to note that Section 25(5) attracts the applicability of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the dishonouring of an electronic funds transfer. Section 138 of the NI Act expressively provides Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.12
16:46:59
+0530
provisions concerning the penalization of dishonoured cheques. Both these sections make the dishonouring of electronic funds and cheques an offence punishable with imprisonment, a fine or both. The prime difference between the two is that in the case of the former, the dishonour, which is the subject matter of the offence, is of electronic funds transfer rather than of a cheque.
12. In this regard reliance can be placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ritu Jain Vs. The State Through Standing Counsel & Anr. in Crl. MC No. 555/2016 dated 12.03.2019, wherein it was held that by virtue of Section 25 (5) of the Payments and Settlement Act, the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) shall apply to the dishonour of an electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit. Therefore, when Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Act, 2007 is invoked, Section 138 of the NI Act is also applicable as the case may be.
13. In order to establish the offence under Section 25 of payment and Settlement Systems Act, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First ingredient: The accused initiated electronic funds transfer from an account maintained by him with the bank.
Second ingredient: The said ECS has been initiated in discharge of any legal debt or other liability. As per the explanation given in Section 25 of the Act , debt or other liability means a "legally enforceable debt or other liability".
Third ingredient: The ECS has been initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the system provider. Fourth ingredient: The ECS when presented for encashment was returned unpaid/dishonored.
Fifth ingredient: The payee of the ECS issued a legal demand notice of demand within 30 days from receipt of information by him from the bank Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:46:52 +0530 concerned regarding the dishonor and the person who initiated the ECS failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the aforesaid notice of demand.
The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Acts 2007, if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled.
Third and Fourth Ingredient
14. The proof of third and fourth ingredient is not disputed. Though the accused has denied taking any credit card, but she has not challenged the compliance of technical or procedural guidelines issued by the system provider in the Electronic Clearing Scheme (ECS). The return memo (Ex. CW1/2) present in the file testifies that the ECS has passed the procedural checks and thereupon it has been faltered upon. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the ECS was dishonoured. As such on the basis of above, the third and fourth ingredients stand proved.
Fifth Ingredient
15. With regard to the fifth ingredient, the complainant has proved on record the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/3, effective delivery of same through postal receipt Ex. CW1/4 and tracking report Ex. CW1/5, wherein the post has can be seen to have been delivered within 30 days of dishonour. The accused has denied receiving any legal demand notice. The accused in her plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C., her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and during her cross-examination has provided the same address as that mentioned on the legal demand notice. Hence, it could be concluded that the legal demand notice was Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:46:43 +0530 sent on the correct address of the accused.
16. It is a settled position that, once it has been established that the legal demand notice by the complainant was sent on the last known address of the accused, a presumption in the light of the Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act will come into play and it could be reasonably presumed that the legal demand notice was served on the accused. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under section. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under section 138 , by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
Therefore, the argument that the accused did not receive the legal demand notice will not hold much strength in the light of the admission of the accused regarding her address. Further, it is to be noted that the accused has not brought any evidence on record to show that the legal demand notice was, in fact, not served on her. Hence, the presumption raised regarding the service of legal Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:46:35 +0530 demand notice will stand un-rebutted. Accordingly, the argument of accused that he did not receive the legal demand notice is rejected. The fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed. Therefore, the fifth ingredient of the offence also stands proved.
First and Second Ingredient
17. Now, it remains to be ascertained if the first and second ingredients are proved or not. As far as the proof of these ingredient is concerned, it has to be proved that the ECS in question was initiated by the accused from an account maintained by her and that too for discharging a legally enforceable debt. It is the case of the complainant that the accused has availed the credit card facility online and has filled in the form for Direct Debit Instructions (Ex. DW1/A) after physically visiting the office of the complainant. The said form is also annexed with the copy of the PAN Card of the accused. Further, for the credentials for issuance of the credit card, the credentials of the accused were picked up from the saving bank account maintained by the accused with the complainant's bank.
18. It cannot be missed that the AR of the complainant stated that the accused had a saving bank account with the HDFC Bank during his cross-
examination examination and the same statement was not denied by the ld. counsel for the accused throughout the remaining cross-examination. Even the accused had not stated in her initial plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C. that she doesn't have any account with the complainant in the first place. The denials of the accused in her plea of defence taken u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and in the cross-examination of the ld. counsel for the accused were limited to the assertion that the accused has not made any request for the credit card from the bank. The assertion that the accused doesn't have any savings bank accused Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:46:26 +0530 with the complainant bank started to appear later, at the stage of the her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
19. During the trial, the complainant has brought on record the return memo of dishonour bearing the alleged bank account number of the accused, the copy of Direct Debit Instruction Form, the copy of application form for credit card dated 22.07.2016 (Ex. DW1/A), the copy of PAN Card of the accused (DW1/X1), the monthly statements of the usage of the credit card (DW1/X2), the account opening form dated 04.07.2015 (Ex. DW1/7), the Form DVAT 04 of the accused wherein the accused has been shown as the proprietor of the Earth Interior (DW1/X4) and the customer undertaking form of the account dated 04.07.2015 (DW1/X8). The court has perused the record with an attempt to streamline the documents appearing on record and has reached on the following observations:
a) That the accused got wiser with her testimony and later started to say that she had not opened any bank account with the complainant also, whereas initially, her defence was limited to issuance of credit card only and the existence of bank account was tacitly admitted. The accused has also not presented any explanation as to how the complainant got the copy of the PAN Card of the accused.
b) That the bank account of the accused was opened way back in the year 2015 and the present cause of action arose in the year 2018. Importantly, the bank account opening form bears the name of the Accused as Hira and her gender is mentioned as 'Female'. The form mentions her correct PAN details and the name of her husband, alongwith his e-mail ID is also written therein. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000 are also shown to have been deposited in the bank. If the version of accused regarding fraud by her husband is relied upon fully, then the question arises that why would an ill-intentioned Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.12 16:46:18 +0530 husband deposit Rs. 1,00,000 in the bank account in the name of his wife. A further question arises as to what was the accused doing about the alleged fraud bank account from 2015 to 2018. The accused has stated in her cross-examination dated 26.07.2024 that she has not made any complaints to the bank officials regarding the misuse of her credit card till date.
c) Further, the bank account has been opened by the name of the accused wherein she has also been shown as a Proprietor of Earth Interior in the DVAT Form. The accused has stated in her cross-examination that her husband works in the field of Interior works as well. It remains unexplained that when a husband is, as alleged by the complainant, misleading the the accused and conducting frauds in the name of the account, then why will he open an account in the name of his wife, deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- in it, and also make her the proprietor of his firm on paper.
It can be reasonably presumed that the bank account of the accused was opened by the husband and wife both together, after due knowledge and the accused started saying she has no such account to make up her defence.
20. The accused has stated in her cross-examination that she had made police complainants against her husband, however the same could not be brought on record by the accused successfully as her application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was dismissed. Though the said police complaints were never taken on record and they were also not proved by leading the relevant witness, however, to provide a fair chance to the defence of the accused, the court has again perused her application and annexed document. It is found out that the accused had made certain police complaints to the PS Jamia Nagar in 2018 and 2019. The accused therein has mentioned that she has received a bill from HDFC, Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY BATHAM TANMAY Date:
BATHAM 2026.03.12
16:46:09
+0530
however, the first usage of the credit card, as shown in the statement of accounts (DW1/X2) is of the month 2016. Nothing explains the silence of the accused for the 2-3 years. Importantly, the accused has mentioned in her police complaint that she has also taken help of scientific evidences in another cases to prove the forgery by her husband. This indicates that the accused is not untouched with the science of matching handwriting and signatures, despite that, the accused has not led any expert evidence regarding her signatures on record. The accused has merely denied signing the bank forms, but has not led any evidence in support of her claim. Pertinently, her application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of the FIR against the accused was dismissed by the concerned court, indicating further infirmities in the case of the accused.
21. The accused has claimed that the credit card has been issued in the name of Hira Kumar and the form for the same shows the gender to be Male, hence, this fact shows that the same has been issued without her consent and someone else has filled in the form. At this point, it becomes important to recall that the present trial in being conducted within the four corners of Payments and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, which is akin to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The liability under the relevant provisions is fastened on the limited essentials, as quoted above and a roving enquiry cannot be allowed. Once it has been established that the Credit card was issued on the same account as is being maintained by the accused, the thrust of Section 25 PASA will come into action. In the present case, the credit card has been taken in continuation of the banking relations between complainant and accused through the savings account. The accused has not been able to dispute the fact that the said account is being maintained by her and as a corollary, she cannot now deny that the credit card was issued on the account maintained by her. The said application form (DW1/A) is stated to have been filled by the accused herself, and in the light of Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:46:00 +0530 any other evidence, the accused cannot be allowed to rely on her mistake for proving that the form has been filled by her husband. Notably, the email ID mentioned in the credit card form is the same as the one mentioned in the savings account form as well.
22. In part conclusion, the defence of the accused is relied on her assertion that her husband has misused her documents and the credit card should not add any legally enforceable liability in her name. However the same defence falls flat due to following reasons:
a) The accused has failed to bring on record any divorce petition, divorce decree or any other proof that she has been separated from her husband.
Even no witness has been led to this effect.
b) The accused had made an application to bring on record certain call recordings, to prove that the verification call made by the complainant bank was received by her husband and his alleged 2nd wife. However, the record reflects that the said application was later withdrawn before the disposal itself. This withdrawal further shakes the credibility of the version being put forth by the accused.
c) The accused has stated in her cross-examination dated 20.03.2024 that she has divorced her husband, but surprisingly, in her cross-examination dated 26.07.2024, she went back on her statement and said that it is correct that she had not legally divorced her husband. This retraction of the accused raises serious doubts on the version of the accused.
d) The accused has made a voluntary statement in her cross-examination dated 20.03.2024 that sometimes her husband also does shopping for her. This statement alone has the potential to shatter the defence on the accused, which is based on the premise of her separation from her husband. It is Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:45:49 +0530 unbelievable that on one hand the accused has filed police complaints against her husband for misusing her documents and obtaining credit cards and on the other hand, he does shopping for her.
23. The accused states herself to be a Graduate by education, with full awareness about online and UPI payments. Her conduct in leading the trial as well as in raising objections about the alleged fraud transactions by her husband has not been prudent enough. She has merely denied everything put to her, but has not led any evidence, oral or documentary, in her favour to prove her innocence. In the light of any defence forthcoming, the version of the complainant becomes more believable. It is also to be noted that while the version of the complainant has been consistent throughout the trial, the accused has improved her version and has testified with contradictory statements during her evidences.
24. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion is that the accused has failed to prove the ECS was not initiated from an account maintained by her and that it was not initiated in discharge of legally enforceable liability of Rs. 82,023/-. Therefore, the first and second ingredients are also proved in the present case.
CONCLUSION
25. To recapitulate the above discussion, the complainant has been successful in establishing his case. The accused has raised defences without any substantiation and has also lost her credibility multiple times mid-trial. The defence of the accused his husband fraudulently misused her credentials to get the credit card issued is liable to be rejected in view of glaring contradictions and deficiencies in the defence of the accused. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant HDFC Bank Ltd. through its AR Mr. Rajeev Kumar is allowed Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by TANMAY TANMAY BATHAM BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12 16:45:36 +0530 and the accused Ms. Hira is hereby convicted of the offence of Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
26. Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally
signed by
ORDER: CONVICTION TANMAY
TANMAY BATHAM
BATHAM Date:
2026.03.12
16:45:20
+0530
Announced in the open court (TANMAY BATHAM)
on 12.03.2026. JMFC (NI ACT-03)
THC (West), Delhi
Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature.
Ct. Case No. 849/2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Hira Page No. 17 of 17