Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Arora vs Deepak Arora on 2 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SOLANKI : JMFC NI
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX
VIJAY KUMAR ARORA
Vs.
DEEPAK ARORA
CC NI ACT No. 768/2019
U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1. CC NI Act number : 768/2019
2. Name of the complainant : Vijay Kumar Arora
3. Name of the accused : Deepak Arora
4. Offence complained of or proved : U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final Judgment/order : Convicted
7. Date of judgment/order : 02.12.2025
Date of Institution: 25.02.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment/Order: 16.09.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order : 02.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by Vijay Kumar Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against Deepak Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI ANKIT Date:
CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 SOLANKI 2025.12.02 16:57:15 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 1 Out of 17 r/w Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act').
Brief facts:
2. It is the case of the complainant, that the accused and complainant are well known to each other from past sevral years and the accused being a family friend of complainant, approached to complainant and stated that the accused was goingn through some dire need of money for his business purposes and in respect of the same accused asked to complainant for a financial help of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lacs Rupees) as a friendly loan. That on repeated requests of the accused and after considering the problems accused was going through at that point time, the complainant agreed to give him the friendly loan of Rs.6,00,000/-(Six lacs Rupees only). 2.1 That in the month of March,2017 appro, complainant gave a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (six lacs Rupees) in cash to the above said accused for a period of one year only as the accused was assured to the complainant, that he was return the Rs.6 lacs within one year (1 year) only. That the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (six Lacs rupees) complainant arranged from borrowing from his son namely Nimit Arora and as complainant is a senior citizen so Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI ANKIT Date:
CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 SOLANKI 2025.12.02 16:57:24 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 2 Out of 17 some amoutn he was saved for the marriage of his daughter, that is very had earned money of complanant. 2.2 That when the period of one year, for which the loan amount was given had been completed, complainant contacted to the above said accused and demanded for his money back. But the accused requested to complainant andseeking for some more time and due to his assurance complainant give him some more time. That when the complainant again demanded his amount returns back, the abovesaid accued issued two cheques bearing no. 000378 dated 15.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Jheel, Delhi-110051 and cheque bearing no.
000379 dated 15.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Jheel, Delhi-110051 for the payment of towards discharge of his liabililty of Rs.6,00,000/- (six lacs rupees only) in favour of complainant and the accused assured to complainant that the cheques will be honored on presentaation and believing his inducement to complainant, the complainant accepted the above mentioned cheques.
2.3 That on dated 15.01.2019, complainant had present the above said cheques for encashment through his bank namely Axis Bank Swasthya Vihar, Delhi branch. That complainant shocked and surprised as the said cheques were returned by his bank as dishonored with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" and "fund inusfficient". That after receiving the Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.02 CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 16:57:32 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530
3 Out of 17 informatin from his bank on dated 16.01.2019, the complainant informed the same to the accused about the dishonor of the cheque and also requests to the accused to clear the payent of the above noted chequs but there is no satisfactory reply was given by the said accused till today.
2.4 That at the time of issuance of these cheques to complainant, accused had assured to complainant that the same would be honored on presentation and beliveing his inducement to complainant, the complainant accepted the above mentioned cheques. Even before presenting the same, complainant sought insturction from accused and only at his assurances and instructions complainanta presented the same in his bank account. It is evident from the conduct of the accued with a guilty mind, managed the affairs in such a fashion so that he may be able to get the money from complainant fro his personal gain and for personal loss to complainant and in this way he also cheated complainant.
2.5. Thereafter, the comlainant sent a legal notice through his counsel for demand of cheques amount on dated 30.01.2019, on the correct addreses of the accused through speed post to the accused, intimating them about the dishonor of above said cheque and calling him upon to make payments of the dishonored cheques amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the legal demand notice. That, after service of legal demand Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.02 CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 16:57:42 +0530 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora 4 Out of 17 notice to the accused, the accused contact to complainant through telephonically and request for some more time and the complainantn again give him some more time and also wait for 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and till filing the present case request to accused to return his money back, despite that accused has failed to make the payment of teh cheque's in question within notice period, hence the present complainat. 2.6. That by issuing the above said cheque's and dishonoring the said cheque due to "payment stopped by drawer" and "fund insufficient" the accused have committed an offence under section 138 NI Act 1881, as amended up to date and under section 420/406 of IPC, and thus rendered himself liable to the prosecuted and punished as per applicable provisions of the NI Act, 1881.
Proceedings before the Court:
3. The complaint was received by assignment in this Court. After perusing the complaint and hearing the arguments of the complainant on the point of summoning of the accused, prima facie it appeared that the offence U/S 138 NI Act, has been committed. Hence, cognizance of the offence U/S 138 NI Act was taken against the accused on 25.02.2019 and summons were issued to the accused.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 768/20192025.12.02 16:57:50 +0530 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora 5 Out of 17
4. Notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused on 03.09.2019 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, considering the defence stated at the time of framing of notice by the accused, this court decided to allow cross examination of the complainant as per 145(2) NI Act, and the case was tried as a summons case. During complainant evidence, complainant has examined himself as witness as CW-1. After due cross examination of CW-1 by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, CE was closed in the present case on 04.03.2024. Statement of the accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded on 25.07.2024 wherein the accused has opted to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, vide separate statement of accused dated 30.06.2025, defence evidence was closed and the case was listed for final arguments. On 16.09.2025, final arguments were heard on behalf of the complainant and accused and the case was reserved for judgment.
Evidence:
5. To prove his case, complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has led his evidence by way of evidence affidavit.
Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKIANKIT Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.02 CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 16:57:58 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530
6 Out of 17
6. Complainant has not examined any other witness in this case.
7. The accused has not lead any evidence and vide separate statement of accused dated 30.06.2025, DE stands closed.
Arguments of both parties:
8. Ld. counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint has argued that all the requirements of Section 138, NI Act have been fulfilled by the complainant in the present case. He argued that the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards his legally enforceable liability. He further argued that when the cheque was presented before the bank for encashment, the same was dishonored on presentation vide return memo dated 16.01.2015 for reasons "Payment Stopped by the Drawer" and 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter the legal notice dated 30.01.2019 was sent to the accused to make the payment within the 15 days stipulated period, but no payment was made by the accused. Thus, all the ingredients of section 138 NI Act, have been duly satisfied and thus presumption U/S 139 NI Act, has been validly raised against the accused. Ld. Counsel submits that the accused has Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 2025.12.02
16:58:06
Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora
+0530
7 Out of 17
failed to raise any probable defence to disprove the case of complainant and to rebut the presumption U/S 139 NI Act.
Appreciation of evidence:
9. I have heard counsels on behalf of both the sides, perused the record as well as relevant provisions of law.
10. Before appreciating the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of decision, let relevant position of law be discussed first. Section 138, NI provides as under:
"Section 138.- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that 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 be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:"
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:CC NI ACT No. 768/2019
2025.12.02 16:58:20 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 8 Out of 17 (A) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(B) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (C) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation -- for the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
11. It is well settled position of law that to constitute an offence under Section 138, NI Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
I. drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, II. The cheque was issued for payment to another person for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability;
III. Cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. RBI in its notification DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001/2011-12 has reduced the aforesaid period from 6 months to 3 months.
IV. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque;
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 2025.12.02
16:58:29
Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora
+0530
9 Out of 17
V. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque amount;
VI. Failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
The offence under Section 138, NI Act is made out against the drawer of the cheque, only when all the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled.
12. In the present case at hand, the complainant has filed on record the original cheque, i.e., bearing nos.000378 and 000379 dated 15.01.2019 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Jheel, Delhi-51. In notice under Section 251 CrPC, the accused has admitted to issuing the cheque in question to the complainant and admitted the signatures on the cheque. Therefore, ingredient number I stands fulfilled in the present case.
13. As per the RBI guidelines, it is essential for the cheque in question be to presented within a period of three months from the date on which they are drawn and the same be returned as unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque. In the case at hand, the cheques in question were returned vide return memo dated 16.01.2015 due to the reason "Payment stopped by the Drawer and "Funds Insufficient." By implication thereof, the cheques were presented within three months and the same were returned for Drawer Signature Differ. Therefore, Ingredient number III & IV stand fulfilled in the present case.
14. The legal notice in the present case was sent to the accused on 14.05.2014 i.e., within 30 days of return of the bank memo indicating cheque in question being unpaid. The accused has not Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.02 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora 16:58:38 +0530 10 Out of 17 admitted to the receipt of legal demand notice in notice u/s 251 CrPC. As per the presumption raised under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if the legal demand notice is sent at thorrect address, then the same shall be deemed to have been duly served.
As per the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri), "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 GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
In K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr, Appeal (crl.) 1015 of 1999 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as "K. Bhaskaran"), the Hon'ble SC observed:
"On the part of the payee he has to make a demand by `giving a notice' in writing. If that was the only requirement to complete the offence on the failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of such `giving' the travails of the prosecution would have been very much lessened. But the legislature says that failure on the part of the drawer to pay the amount should be within 15 days `of the receipt' of the saidnotice. It is, therefore, clear that `giving notice' in the context is not the same as receipt of notice." The burden of giving notice within 30 days of return of bank memo, falls on the complainant/payee to constitute the offence u/s 138, NI Act. If the notice is served on the correct address, then the presumption u/s 27 General Clauses Act and Section 114, Indian Evidence Act arises in the favour of the complainant/payee. Therefore, it is deemed that the legal notice was duly served on the accused person. The ingredient number V also stands fulfilled in the present case.Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI
ANKIT CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.02 16:58:46 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 11 Out of 17
15. Moving on, it is not disputed that the accused has not made the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of legal demand notice. Therefore, ingredient number VI also stands fulfilled in the present case.
16. Let us now move on to ingredient number II, 16.1. The NI Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque, i.e., complainant; firstly, with regard to the issuance of cheque for consideration, as contained in Section 118(a) and secondly, with regard to the fact that the holder of cheque received the same for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, as contained in Section 139 of the Act.
16.2. Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [AIR 2019 SC 1983] held that:
I. Once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates that a presumption be drawn that the cheque in question was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
II. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable 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 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 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI
ANKIT CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.02 16:58:53 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 12 Out of 17 It is therefore implied that the law regarding the presumption for the offence under Section 138, NI Act, the presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 have to be compulsorily raised as soon as the execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise.
16.3. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [(2009) 2 SCC 513], has laid down the benchmark for the burden of proof that the accused has to raise a doubt as to the presumption under Section 139, NI Act.
"The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions, an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.02 16:59:02 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 13 Out of 17 upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue."
16.4. To put in a nutshell, the intent behind the NI Act is to prevent financial frauds and affect the socio-economic well- being of the country. If the burden is placed on the complainant to prove the existence of liability against the accused, that would be too harsh as most of these transactions are in the nature of "friendly loan" and the accused would, in a normal circumstance, always deny the liability. Therefore, the legislation is drafted in a way so as to discharge the complainant from proving the liability and a presumption is raised by virtue of Section 139 read with Section 118(a) of the Act that the cheque if issued by the accused, then the same is deemed to be in Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 SOLANKI Date:
2025.12.02 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora 16:59:10 +0530 14 Out of 17 discharge of some legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused "may" either prove that no legally enforceable debt existed or punch holes in the story of the complainant and give rise to a probable defence to rebut the presumption. As per the law discussed above, the burden of proof on the accused to raise a probable defence is that of "preponderance of probabilities", and not "beyond reasonable doubt." Once a probable defence is raised, then the onus is shifted to the complainant to establish that a legally enforceable liability existed in his favour and the burden of proof on complainant in this case is that of "beyond reasonable doubt."
16.5. The accused can rebut the presumption as raised under the NI Act by (a) putting forth his defence at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC; (b) cross-examining the complainant; (c) when statement of accused is recorded u/s 313 CrPC; (d) or by leading defence evidence, thereby demolishing the case of the complainant. It is amply clear that the accused does not need to discharge his or her liability beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He just needs to create holes in the case set out by the Complainant.
17. In light of the above discussions since the accused has admitted to issuance of cheque, admitted the signature on the Cheque and the legal demand notice what is left to be seen is whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption against himself and that whether he has been able to raise a probable defence in his favor or not.
18. At final arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant had argued that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and a presumption u/s 118 NI Act is in favour of the complainant. The complainant has been successful in proving his case on the basis of preponderance of probability.Digitally signed by ANKIT SOLANKI
ANKIT Date:
SOLANKI 2025.12.02 CC NI ACT No. 768/2019 16:59:22 +0530 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora 15 Out of 17
19. On the other hand, the accused had argued that he does not owe any legal liability towards the complainant and the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant. Therefore, he be acquitted of all the charges.
20. After hearing both the parties at length, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque. There is a presumption U/s 118 and 139 of the NI Act in favour of the complainant, which has been discussed earlier.
21. However, it is a rebuttable presumption. But in order to rebut the same the accused has to lead some cogent proof either to prove his case or to punch holes in the version put forward by the complainant.
22. In the present matter the defense taken by the accused is merely based on his contention that he had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the son of the complainant and has repaid Rs.1,80,000/- to him. However, in order to prove the said contention, accused has not led any evidence. Nothing cogent has come on record to impeach the credit of the complainant.
The onus of proof was upon the accused to prove that he had not taken loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant and that he had taken loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the son of the complainant, out of which he has already repaid Rs.1,80,000/-. But the accused has neither been able to impeach the credit of the complainant nor has led any evidence in his contentions. As already discussed, presumption u/s 139 is in favour of the complainant and the onus of rebutting the same is upon accused. The accused in this matter has not been able to rebut the same.
23. On the basis of discussion above, this court is the humble opinion that the accused has not been successful in raising a probable defence. The complainant has been successful in proving his case on the basis of preponderance of probability.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
CC NI ACT No. 768/20192025.12.02 16:59:32 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora +0530 16 Out of 17 All the ingredients of Section 138 have been fulfilled.
Accordingly, the accused is convicted of the offence u/s 138 of NI Act.
24. Copy of this Judgment be given free of cost to both the parties.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT SOLANKI
Announced in open Court SOLANKI Date:
Today on this 02.12.2025 2025.12.02
16:59:39
+0530
(Ankit Solanki)
Judicial Magistrate First Class
(NI ACT), East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
CC NI ACT No. 768/2019
Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. Deepak Arora
17 Out of 17