Delhi District Court
Mehar Singh Tanwar vs M/S Insightful Associates Pvt. Ltd on 25 November, 2025
Digitally
signed by
AKSHAY
AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.11.26 IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY SHARMA, JUDICIAL
15:20:38
+0530 MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS(NI ACT)-08, (SOUTH
DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CC NO. : 6710/2023
U/S : 138 Negotiable Instrument Act
MEHAR CHAND TANWAR,
S/o. SHRI KANWAR SINGH TANWAR
R/o. 127, VILLAGE ASOLA,
NEW DELHI-110074
VS.
(1)M/S INSIGHTFUL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.
502, FIFTH FLOOR, SPAZE, PLATINUM POWER,
SECTOR -47, SOHNA ROAD, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122001.
(2) RAJAT LUBANA DHARAMVEER SINGH
DIRECTOR
M/S INSIGHTFUL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.
502, FIFTH FLOOR, SPAZE, PLATINUM POWER,
SECTOR -47, SOHNA ROAD, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122001.
ALSO AT:
HOUSE NO.16/1 HANS ENCLAVE, NEAR
RAJIV CHOWK, GURGAON, HARYANA.
(3) SHAILENDER MOHAN (NOT SUMMONED)
DIRECTOR
M/S INSIGHTFUL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.
502, FIFTH FLOOR, SPAZE, PLATINUM POWER,
SECTOR -47, SOHNA ROAD, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122001.
ALSO AT:
HOUSE NO.2454, FLAT NO.16, JAL VIHAR,
RAJENDRA PARK, GURUGRAM, HARYANA.
CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 1 of 23
(4) SUNIL KUMAR (NOT SUMMONED)
DIRECTOR
M/S INSIGHTFUL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.
502, FIFTH FLOOR, SPAZE, PLATINUM POWER,
SECTOR -47, SOHNA ROAD, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122001.
(5) DINESH KUMAR (NOT SUMMONED)
DIRECTOR
M/S INSIGHTFUL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.
502, FIFTH FLOOR, SPAZE, PLATINUM POWER,
SECTOR -47, SOHNA ROAD, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122001.
ALSO AT:
HOUSE NO.2454, FLAT NO.12, JAL VIHAR,
RAJENDRA PARK, GURUGRAM, HARYANA.
DATE OF DECISION : 26.11.2025
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.08.2023
FINAL ARGUMENTS HEARD ON 03.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26.11.2025
1) CNR NO. : DLST020162212023
2) S. No. of the case : 6710/2023
3) Name of the accused : (1) M/s Insightful
Associates Pvt. Ltd.
(2) Rajat Lubana
4) Offence complained off : 138 NI Act
5) plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 2 of 23
6) Final Order : Convicted
7) Date of such order : 26.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The instant matter originated out of a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') filed the complainant against the accused company namely M/s Insightful Associates Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors alleging that cheques issued by the accused persons drawn on the account of accused No.1 in favour of the complainant were dishonored on presentation.
Brief facts:
2. As per the complaint, accused No.2 namely Rajat Lubana, who is one of Directors of accused No.1 company approached the complainant with a lucrative offer and misrepresented that accused No.2 is dealing in forex exchange, accused No.2 represented that he needs money for business development and induced the complainant to give loan and further offered the complainant that he will pay handsome return on the loan amount. Initially one agreement/Ikrarnama was drafted wherein it was agreed to share 50% benefit of the amount received. On the basis of this misrepresentation, complainant advanced Rs.16,07,800/- to the accused. The said Ikrarnama is Annexure A1 of the complaint and the same was proved by the complainant as Ex.CW1/1 in the pre summoning and post summoning evidence.
3. Thereafter, accused No.2 Rajat Lubana took a further loan of CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 3 of 23 Rs.10,03,200/- on 26.01.2022, a loan receipt in this regard was executed by accused No.2, which is Annexure A2 of the complaint and was proved by the complainant as Ex.CW1/2. It is further the case of the complainant that accused No.2 took further loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and acknowledged Rs.97,000/- as profit of the complainant. With respect to the cash loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and the acknowledgment of the trading profit, copy of acknowledgment which is Annexure A3 of the complaint, later on marked as Ex.CW1/3 has been filed by the complainant.
4. It is stated in the complaint that thereafter, accused No.2, 3 and 5 further sought a loan of Rs.25,50,000/- from the complainant. An agreement dated 12.05.2022 was executed between the complainant and the accused persons, wherein accused promised to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. This agreement is Annexure A4 of the complaint and was later on marked as Ex.CW1/4 at the pre summoning and post summoning evidence stage. At the time of this agreement, three cheques were given by the accused persons to the complainant for due discharge of the loan amount, however the said cheques were returned unpaid.
5. It is further case of the complainant that on 29.09.2022, accused persons took further loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from the complainant, an agreement in this regard was also executed between the parties, the said agreement was marked as Ex.CW1/5 during the pre summoning and CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 4 of 23 post summoning evidence stage. As per the complaint, total amount of Rs.71,58,000/- has been received by the accused persons so far.
6. Complainant has mentioned in para 5 of the complaint that between 10.08.2022 to 09.12.2022, amount of Rs.16,20,000/- was received by the complainant from one company namely Joshi Sons Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., further Rs.2,00,000/- was also received from accused No.1 company between 12.10.2022 to 19.10.2022.
Complainant has stated that the amount so received was the profit amount and the principal amount of Rs.71,58,000/- remained outstanding. Further, accused No.2, 3 & 5 again approached complainant for Rs.25,00,000/-, but the complainant declined the request.
7. Thereafter complainant approached all accused No.2 to 5 for payment of the principal outstanding amount, accused persons agreed to return a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- on 01.12.2022, but thereafter accused persons stopped communicating with the complainant. Complainant left with no option filed a complaint dated 05.12.2022 before DCP, South, which is Ex.CW1/6, after the same, accused No.2 to 5 offered to return the principal amount and after negotiation issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.61,00,000/- and promised to encash the same on the date of its maturity, at that time complainant pointed out that he made the payment to the accused in their individual capacity and he needs money for correct accounting practices. However accused No.2 to 5 assured that CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 5 of 23 they have infact accounted all the money received from the complainant in the accounts of accused No.1 and they being the directors assured that they are liable to pay as directors, and accordingly issued cheque from the account of accused No.1.
8. Accused persons issued cheque bearing No.000754 dated 30.05.2023 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, however upon presentation the said cheque was returned dishonoured for reasons 'funds insufficient' vide return memo dated 07.06.2023. Cheque No.000754 is herein Ex.CW1/7, the return memo of the said cheque is Ex.CW1/8.
9. Upon receipt of the information regarding dishonour of the cheque, complainant issued statutory legal notice dated 21.06.2023 to all the accused persons, the copy of the said legal notice is Annexure A9 of the complaint and is marked as Ex.CW1/9, the postal receipts of the said legal notice are Ex.CW1/10(colly) and Ex.CW1/11(colly), the return envelopes are Ex.CW1/12(colly) & Ex.CW1/14(colly), the tracking reports are Ex.CW1/13(colly) and Ex.CW1/15(colly).
10. As per the complaint, the legal notice sent through speed post was delivered to all accused persons except accused No.2. Original unreceived envelope of the notice sent to accused No.2 is Ex.CW1/12(colly) and Ex.CW1/14 respectively.
11. Thereafter, when the accused persons failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time period, the present complaint along with other complaints qua the other cheques issued in the course of same transaction was filed before the Court.
CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 6 of 23
12. After perusal of the complete complaint and the affidavit of evidence, sufficient material was found and summoning orders were passed against the accused No.1 & 2 under Section 204 Cr.PC vide order dated 02.08.2023 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Accused No.3 to 5 were not summoned in the present case.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND TRIAL
13. The accused appeared on 08.08.2023 pursuant to the summons, thereafter on 08.08.2023, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused No.1 company through accused No.2 namely Rajat Lubana Dharamveer Singh and accused No.2 as well, to which the accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the offence U/s 138 NI Act. In the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that he knows the complainant from 2021, accused stated that he took Rs.49 Lakhs from the complainant for investment in share market, written agreement was made between the parties for the said investment. The cheques in question were given for settlement of previous investment in front of police officers under coercion as police officers were present at that time on the scene. Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and also admitted that the name and date on the cheque in question is in his handwriting. Further, the accused denied the receipt of legal notice from the complainant, though the accused admitted that the address on the legal demand notice is the correct address. On the date of framing of notice, oral request U/s 145(2) NI Act made on behalf of the CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 7 of 23 accused persons was also allowed.
14. In order to prove his case, the complainant had examined himself as CW-1 by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. In the evidence affidavit, complainant substantially reiterated the facts of the present case as mentioned in the complaint and relied on the documents as mentioned above. The complainant adopted his pre summoning evidence at the stage of post summoning evidence and relied on the documents already tendered at the stage of pre summoning evidence.
The complainant relied on agreements and loan receipts marked as Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/5, the complaint dated 05.12.2022 to the local police official as Ex.CW1/6, the original cheque No.000754 dated 30.05.2023 as Ex.CW1/7, the return memo of cheque as Ex.CW1/8, the office copy of the legal notice as Ex.CW1/9. Original speed postal receipts and original registered postal receipts from Ex.CW1/10(colly) to Ex.CW1/11(colly). The return envelopes along with postal receipts as Ex.CW1/12 and Ex.CW1/14. The tracking reports as Ex.CW1/13(colly) and Ex.CW1/15 respectively. The complaint was also proved as Ex.CW1/X.
15. The complainant was duly cross examined on behalf of the accused, after the examination of the complainant, complainant's evidence was closed and joint statement of the accused No.1 M/s Insightful Associates Pvt. Ltd and accused No.2 was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C.. In the statement, accused No.2 stated that he is the director of accused No.1, he has not taken any CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 8 of 23 amount from the complainant personally and he has no outstanding towards the complainant, accused denied the receipt of the legal notice as well. Further, the accused No.2 stated that he had given the cheque in question to the complainant blank and signed, the cheques were given in the presence of police officials under coercion in Gurugram in the month of December, 2023. The complainant had made investment in his own account. The authority, IDs and KYC were of the complainant. Accused further stated that he has no licence of dealing in forex and he deals in gold. Accused preferred to lead defence evidence.
16. In the defence evidence accused examined himself as DW-1, briefly stated, the accused in his examination deposed that he met the complainant prior to 2022, the trading account of the complainant was opened and the funds were deposited in the said trading account, whatever amount of Rs.45 Lakhs was deposited by the complainant, on the basis of the said deposit Rs.80 Lakhs were paid to the complainant in 2023, 90% of the payment was done by accounting practice and 10% wad done in cash. Thereafter the complainant started pressurizing for account settlement and the account was closed. Accused further stated when he denied to make any further payment, the complainant along with police officials and his PSO came to the office of the accused at Sector-47, Gurugram. One of the police officials namely SI Rajesh forced them(accused persons) on gun point to issue the subject cheques and their signatures on blank officials papers were also obtained. Accused also stated that he made a complaint at the local Sadar Police CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 9 of 23 Station regarding the said incident and SI Rajesh was inquired by the local police officials. Accused also filed an excel sheet reflecting summary of payments to the complainant as Ex.DW1/A, further accused filed screenshots of payments and whatsapp conversations as Ex.DW1/B(colly into 20 pages), Certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act was also filed in support of the said documents(Ld. Counsel for the complainant objected to the mode of proof of Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B).
(NOTE: THE DOCUMENTS FORMING PART OF EX.DW1/B ARE PRESENT IN THE CASE FILE, HOWEVER THEY ARE NOT MARKED AS EX.DW1/B AS SUCH, THOUGH THEY ARE MARKED IN ANOTHER CONNECTED CASE NO.5182/2023 BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES REGARDING THE SAME TRANSACTION.)
17. The accused was duly cross examined on behalf of the complainant and thereafter DW-2 SI Rajesh was examined by the accused. Briefly stated, SI Rajesh deposed that he inquired the complaint of the complainant dated 08.12.2022, which is Ex.DW2/A. In pursuance of the said complaint, notices were issued to the accused persons, copy of the said notices were exhibited as Ex.DW2/B and Ex.DW2/C. DW-2 SI Rajesh further stated that accused No.2 Rajat Lubana appeared personally and filed his reply dated 14.12.2022 and the reply of Dinesh Joshi and Shailender Mohan, copy of the said CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 10 of 23 replies was proved as Ex.DW2/D, Ex.DW2/E and Ex.DW2/F respectively. DW-2 denied that the accused handed over any cheques. DW-2 stated that after the reply he verified regarding compromise from the complainant and when the complainant affirm the same he closed the complaint as the matter appeared to be civil in nature. DW-2 was duly cross examined on behalf of the complainant and thereafter defence evidence was closed and final arguments were heard. (NOTE: THE DOCUMENTS OF DW-2 SI RAJESH ARE MENTIONED IN THE CROSS EXAMINATION, HOWEVER THE SAME ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE FILE, HOWEVER THOSE DOCUMENTS FORM PART OF ANOTHER CONNECTED CASE BEARING CC NO.5182/2023).
DISCUSSION OF LAW, EVIDENCE AND DECISION
18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the Ld. counsels from both sides and have also perused the record. Before appreciation of evidence led on behalf of the parties, at the very outset, I would like to narrate the legal principles relevant for adjudication of complaint under Section 138 of NI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 at page 422 held as follows :
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 11 of 23 presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
Further, the three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. S. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 has ruled that existence of liability itself is a presumption of law. It was held as under:
"26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability."
19. In this case, issuance of the cheque, its presentation and dishonor are not in dispute, inasmuch as the same have been duly proved on the basis of cogent evidence.
20. The signatures on the cheque in question Ex.CW1/7 are admitted by the accused in the notice u/s 251 CrPC, moreover, the accused had CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 12 of 23 also admitted that the name and the date on the cheque in question is in his handwriting. The aforesaid cheque in question was returned dishonored vide return memo bearing Ex.CW1/8 for reasons funds insufficient. The legal notice bearing Ex.CW1/9 was sent to the accused no.1/company and accused no.2/Rajat Lubhana, the internet generated tracking reports filed by the complainant indicate that the item (notice) was delivered to the addressee. The receipt of legal demand notice is denied by accused in the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., however, the accused admitted that the address on the legal demand notice is the correct address.
21. It is stated that the denial of the receipt of the legal notice cannot absolve accused no.1 and accused no.2 of the liability in the present case as the address on the legal demand notice is admitted to be correct by the accused. In light of the presumptions laid down u/s 27 General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and also considering the tracking report filed by the complainant, it can be safely presumed that the legal notice was delivered to accused no.1 and accused no.2. At this stage, this court deems appropriate to mention the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 236 wherein it was held as follows:
"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 CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 13 of 23 ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
22. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, the statutory requirements U/s 138 NI Act are complied with, accordingly, the presumptions under sections 139 and 118 NI Act that the cheque in question was for a legally recoverable debt/liability stands activated. Reliance is placed on the judgment of The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr, (2014) 5 SCC 590 wherein it was held that:
"We make it clear that if the proviso (a), (b) & (c) to Section 138 of the Act are shown to have been complied with, technically the commission of the offence stands completed and it is for the accused to show that no offence could have been committed by him for specific reasons and defences."
23. Once the requirements provided U/s 138 NI Act stands proved, the statutory presumptions provided under the NI Act arise in favour of the complainant and the offence U/s 138 NI Act which is technical in nature, stands completed, thereafter, the burden to disprove the existence of legal liability is upon the accused. This may be done by poking holes in the case of the complainant or by leading positive evidence in defence.
24. Thus, proceeding further this Court would analyse the submissions of the accused at various stages in the proceedings, the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused and the defence CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 14 of 23 evidence led by the accused to find answer to the question that whether the accused has been able to raise a probable defence or not. Simultaneously, the complaint and the annexed documents filed by the complainant would also be analyzed to effectively adjudicate that whether the defence of the accused is probable or not.
25. In reply to notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., the accused had admitted that he took Rs.49,00,000/- from the complainant for investment in share market and the written agreement for the said investment was also made, accused averred that the cheque in question was given for settlement of previous investments in front of police officers under coercion.
26. In the joint statement of accused no.1 company and accused no.2 u/s 313 CrPC r.w. Section 281 CrPC, the accused stated that he had not taken any amount from the complainant personally and he has no outstanding amount towards the complainant. The accused deviated from his stand taken in the notice u/s 251 CrPC in a manner that the accused stated that the cheques were given in blank signed condition to the complainant. Though, accused reiterated that the cheques were given in the presence of the police officials under coercion in Gurugram in December, 2023. Accused further stated that the complainant had made investment in his own account, the authority, IDs and KYCs were of the complainant and he has no license of dealing in Forex as he deals in gold.
CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 15 of 23
27. As noted in the preceding above two paragraphs, there is an inconsistency in the version of the accused as reflected from the notice u/s 251 CrPC and the statement u/s 313 CrPC.
28. The factum of extending the loan/legal debt by the complainant to the accused, is reflected from the agreements, loan receipts placed on record by the complainant. The execution of those loan agreements and the receipts is not denied on behalf of the accused no.2. Ex.CW1/1 which is an agreement/Ikrarnama indicates that Rs.16,07,800/- were provided to the accused no.2 by the complainant, the loan receipt Ex.CW1/2 reflects that loan amount of Rs.10,03,200/- in cash was received by the accused no.2 from the complainant, further a hand written note which is Ex.CW1/3 indicates that the accused no.2 received Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the complainant, another agreement which is Ex.CW1/4 also reflects that loan of Rs.25,50,000/- was extended to accused no.2 along with other directors/ not summoned accused persons. Thereafter, another agreement Ex.CW1/5 also indicates that Rs.16,00,000/- were provided as loan by the accused to the complainant.
29. As already mentioned above, the accused has per se not denied the execution of the agreements ExCW1/1 to ExCW1/5, the complainant was duly cross examined at length on behalf of the accused in CC No.5182/2023, the Ld. Counsels for both the CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 16 of 23 complainant and the accused adopted the cross examination of the complainant conducted in CC No.5182/2023 in the present case as well as in CC No.5183/2023, the present case along with the aforementioned CC numbers is on the basis of the same facts and only the cheques in question are different,
30. No fact has surfaced in the cross examination of the complainant to indicate that the Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/5 are false documents, rather, by virtue of the cross examination of the complainant dated 08.01.2025, wherein, at the first paragraph, suggestions regarding the correctness of Ex.CW1/1 and Ex.CW1/2 are put, it can be reasonably construed that the accused admits Ex.CW1/1 and Ex.CW1/2.
31. It is further stated that the primary defence of the accused is that the cheques in question were given under coercion, accused/DW-1 has averred in his examination dtd. 30.04.2025 that the complainant along with police officials came to his office at Gurugram, accused specifically named SI Rajesh and stated that SI Rajesh forced to issue the subject cheques under pressure at gun point, the accused also stated that after 20 days he made a complaint as to the same at the local police station, further the accused also deposed that thereafter, as well SI Ramphool Meena of PS Fatehpur Beri called him several times to settle the matter.
32. It is noted that deposition of the accused does not inspire CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 17 of 23 confidence in the mind of this court, as it is the version of the accused himself that the cheques were given under pressure of SI Rajesh for settlement of dues, if this was the case and the settlement had already took place, then there was no occasion for SI Ramphool Meena to again contact the accused for settlement.
33. It is also pointed out that despite such an incident with the accused, the complaint was made by the accused to the local police station after a delay of 20 days, indicating that the version of the accused can be an after thought. Further, no any copy of such complaint was filed by the accused during his evidence, neither any police official from the said local police station was summoned by the accused to substantiate his version. Moreover, in the cross-examination dtd. 28.05.2025, accused admitted that he made a written application to Sadar Police Station and he cannot bring the same. Accused simultaneously admitted that it was an application and not a complaint. Further in the cross examination, accused also admitted that he has not informed his bank regarding forcible issuance of cheques. Even for the sake of argument, if the version of the accused is believed to be true, the question arises that why did the accused not issued 'stop payment instructions' to the bank qua the cheques in question, as in this case the cheques are dishonored for reasons 'funds insufficient'.
34. At this stage, it is also pertinent to discuss the testimony of DW-2 SI Rajesh, who was summoned by the accused as a witness to CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 18 of 23 substantiate his version. DW-2 SI Rajesh admitted that he was inquiring the complaint filed by the complainant dtd. 08.12.2022 and he also issued notices to the accused persons, DW-2 further stated that during inquiry accused no. Rajat Lubhana appeared personally and filed his reply dtd. 14.12.2022 along with the reply of Mr. Dinesh Joshi and Shailender Mohan, the said replies are herein ExDW2/D, ExDW2/E and ExDW2/F, in his reply ExDW2/D accused no.2 apprised DW-2 SI Rajesh that the matter has been settled with the complainant for Rs.61,00,000/- and cheques have also been issued to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the accused has not denied the said reply. Ex.DW2/D which mentions details of 6 cheques issued in the pursuance of settlement by the accused to the complainant and out of those six cheques, four cheques are the subject matter/cheques in question in the present complaint as well as in two other connected complaint cases. Thus, the testimony of DW-2 strengthens the case of the complainant and inclines this court to believe that the cheques in question were indeed issued for a legally enforceable debt in pursuance of the settlement.
35. Though, certain suggestions were put to DW-2 by the Ld counsel for the accused, however, the said suggestions were denied and the version of the accused as to handing over of the cheques under coercion and threat could not be substantiated from the testimony of DW-2. Further, DW-2 in the cross examination on behalf of the complainant also stated that accused Rajat Lubhana has not made any complaint CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 19 of 23 against him in any police station or to senior officers regarding the complaint filed by the complainant.
36. In light of the testimony of DW-2, the documents proved by DW-2 particularly the reply of accused Rajat Lubhana during inquiry, the non filing/production of any complaint against DW-2 by accused Rajat Lubhana, this court is of the view that the defence of the accused that the cheques were handed under coercion and threat is not substantiated and cannot be relied upon, rather the testimony of DW-2 and the documents proved by DW-2 further strengthens the case of the complainant in a manner that the fact of handing over of the cheques in a formal manner pursuant to the police complaint is established.
37. It is further noted that the accused had taken another defence that there is no outstanding on his part to be paid to the complainant and he has returned the amount taken from the complainant. In this regard, accused had put on record two documents Ex.DW1/A i.e. an excel sheet consisting the summary of payments made to the complainant, in the opinion of this court the entries as mentioned in Ex.DW1/A cannot aid the accused without any proof of payment corresponding to the said entries, as Ex.DW1/A appears to be a self made document by the accused and without any proof, the contents of the same does not hold any merit.
38. Another document i.e. Ex.DW1/B(containing 20 pages) has been CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 20 of 23 filed by the accused Rajat Lubhana during his examination in CC No.5182/2023, the documents of Ex.DW1/B form part of the present case file as well, though they are not specifically marked as Ex.DW1/B. Ex.DW1/B at certain pages contains screenshots of payments made to the complainant and is filed in support to substantiate Ex.DW1/A. In the opinion of this Court, it is difficult to construe that the payments as highlighted in Ex.DW1/B were made towards the legally recoverable debt for which the cheques in question were issued in the present case, as well as in the connected complaint cases, for the following reasons:
38.1 The first page indicates two payments of Rs.50,000/- each made to the complainant on 16.03.2023 and 18.03.2023 from Dinesh Kumar and accused No.2 respectively, the subsequent two pages also indicate that payments were made to the complainant on 25.03.2023, 17.04.2023 and 18.04.2023, this Court is unable to understand that when the accused had already settled under coercion and given the cheques for the said settlement as per the reply of the accused Ex.DW2/D in December, 2022, then why were the payments being made by him post that, thus it cannot conclusively be said that the payments on which the accused is relying were for the same legal debt for which the cheques were issued. It is also pertinent to state that the complainant has himself acknowledged certain payments on which the accused relies in para 5 of the complaint.
38.2 The accused has also filed certain screenshots of payments made CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 21 of 23 in the binance (crypto currency platform) account of the complainant, it is stated those payments are in digital currency and have been made in the years 2021 and 2022, as per the examination of the accused, the accused himself admitted in cross examination dated 28.05.2025 that the binance was given legal recognition by the Ministry of Finance vide notification dated 07.03.2023, thus the transactions prior to March, 2023 did not have any legal recognition to them, hence this Court does not deem fit to rely on the payments proof of the binance app filed by the accused in his support. Moreover the identity of the payer/payee cannot be concluded from the binance app screenshots filed by the accused.
39. It is pertinent to mention that the cheques in question in the present case and in another connected complaint cases are drawn from the account of accused No.1 company and accused No.2 represented accused No.1 company during trial being the Director and the main individual who was in contact with the complainant. The accused in his cross examination dated 28.05.2025 at page 5 has admitted that he along with Shailender Mohan and Dinesh are responsible for day to day affairs of accused No.1 company, hence it can be reasonably construed that accused No.2 knowingly acted on behalf of accused No.1 company and issued the cheques.
40. In conclusion, it is stated that the factum of debt being extended to the accused is established by the agreements/loan receipts filed by CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 22 of 23 the complainant, the handing over of the cheques by the accused is established by the admissions of the accused in the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., in addition the testimony of DW-2 also establishes that the cheques were handed over in a formal manner in pursuance of settlement by the accused to the complainant. The accused has not been able to establish his defences that the cheques were given under coercion or that the payment qua the legal debt has already been made by the accused. Hence, since the statutory presumptions are not rebutted by the accused and no probable defence has come-forth, therefore both accused No.1 company and accused No.2 Rajat Lubana are convicted for the offence U/s 138 NI Act.
41. Let a copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost.Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMA
AKSHAY Date:
SHARMA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN 2025.11.26
15:20:44
+0530
COURT ON 26.11.2025
(AKSHAY SHARMA)
JMFC(NI Act)-08,South
Saket/NewDelhi/26.11.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 23(twenty three) pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.26 15:20:49 +0530 (AKSHAY SHARMA) JMFC(NI Act)-08,South Saket/NewDelhi/26.11.2025 CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 23 of 23