Delhi District Court
Religare Finvest Ltd vs Amir Khan on 16 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWNA RATTAN
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) - 10
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 12.04.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 27.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2026
In the matter of:
1. Regn. No. of Case : CC 6483/2017
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW020086962017
3. Name of complainant : Religare Finvest Limited.
Office At: D3, P3B,
District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
4. Name of accused : Amir Khan
C-58 C Block JJ Colony
Sec-7
Dwarka, New Delhi-
110075.
5. Offence complained of : Under Section 138 NI Act
6. Offence charged under : 138 NI Act
Section
7. Plea of accused person : Not guilty.
BHAWNA
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL RATTAN
Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.05.16
15:43:25 +0530
Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 1 of 16
Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the complaint filed by the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT
1. The complainant is a non-banking finance company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act,1956. The complainant has authorized Sh. Vipin Kumar Meena as authorised representative (AR) to appear on the behalf of the complainant in the present matter, appointed vide power of attorney.
2. That the complainant is engaged in the business of providing financial facilities to its customers under the various finance schemes such as loan against property, loan to small and medium enterprises, JBL, personal loans etc.
3. That the accused is the proprietor of M/s Khan Traders and had approached the complainant for grant of loan/credit facility under the JBL/SME loan, specifically purchasing products as mentioned in facility agreement. Thereafter after completing the formalities, the complainant provided loan/credit facility to the accused. The accused undertook to comply the terms and conditions of the loan facility. However, the accused failed to comply Digitally the same. signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.05.16 15:43:34 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 2 of 16 +0530 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
4. That the accused thus issued a cheque i.e. the cheque in question to the complainant in discharge of the legal liability arising out of the loan facility. However, when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, it got dishonoured due to the reason "funds insufficient."
5. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal demand notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount but the accused failed to make any payment despite service of the legal demand notice. Thus, the present complaint.
PRE SUMMONING EVIDENCE
6. At the stage of pre-summoning evidence, the complainant relied upon the following documents:
i. Power of attorney Ex CW1/A (OSR).
ii. Original cheque Ex CW1/B.
iii. Return memo Ex CW1/C.
iv. Copy of legal demand notice Ex CW1/D.
v. Postal receipts Ex CW1/E1 and Ex CW1/E2.
vi. Tracking receipt and returned envelope Ex CW1/F1 and
Ex CW1/F2.
vii. Complaint Ex CW1/G.
7. After the PSE is led, the summoning of the accused is BHAWNA done if there is sufficient material on record in terms of the RATTAN Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 3 of 16 15:43:39 +0530 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN ingredients of the offence. i.e. once the complaint prima facie reveals that there is sufficient material on record to summon the accused, then the accused is summoned. The summoning order was done on 12.04.2017.
APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED
8. For securing the appearance of the accused, summons issued and was served. The accused thus entered into appearance and notice was framed.
NOTICE FRAMING
9. Notice under section 251 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) was framed on 23.08.2017 and the same was read over and explained to accused and the accused was asked to make his plea of defence to which he stated;
The cheque in question bears my signatures and was given by me to the representative of one JBL company. I have not filled the particulars on the cheque in question. I do not owe the amount as is mentioned in the cheque in question towards the complainant as liability.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
10. During the course of the trial, new AR was BHAWNA RATTAN appointed/substituted. New AR, Sh. Arun Mohan Mishra, Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN tendered his fresh evidence affidavit Ex CW1/A1 and Date: 2026.05.16 15:43:45 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 4 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN furnished on record power of attorney Ex CW1/A2 (OSR) executed in his favor and also relied upon all the documents tendered at the stage of pre summoning evidence to prove the liability of the accused.
STAGE OF CROSS EXAMINATION
11. For the purpose of cross examination, it is pertinent to mention the provision under section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments, Act 1881;
The court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.
12. In the present matter, application under section 145 (2) of the Act was filed on the behalf of the accused for seeking an opportunity to cross examine the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant did not object the application and thus, the court after considering the defence taken by the accused allowed accused an opportunity to cross examine the complainant.
13. Thus, CW1 was examined in chief and partially cross examined on 05.09.2023. Thereafter again new AR was appointed/substituted who then tendered his fresh evidence BHAWNA affidavit Ex CW1/1A and furnished on record power of RATTAN Digitally signed by attorney Ex CW1/A3 (OSR) executed in his favour. Then, BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 15:43:53 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 5 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN CW1 was further cross examined and discharged on 12.12.2025.
14. Complainant did not examine any other witness in CE and vide separate statement closed CE.
RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 of CrPC
15. At the stage of recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of CrPC all the incriminating circumstances/evidences are put to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to explain the same. The statement of the accused was recorded on 12.12.2025.
16. The accused at the time of recording of statement under section 313 of CrPC, stated as follows;
I did not take any loan from complainant company. My friend had taken loan from JBL company, where he was working and my cheque was taken in the capacity of guarantor. Copy of my aadhar card and PAN card copy was also given. Further, my friend also told me that he did not receive any loan from JBL company.
17. Accused also stated that he did not know the complainant. BHAWNA RATTAN Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 15:43:58 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 6 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
18. Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque but denied the receipt of legal demand notice. However, admitted that one of the addresses mentioned on the legal demand notice is his correct address.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
19. At the time of recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of CrPC, the accused wished not to lead the defence evidence (DE). Thus, no defence evidence was lead on the behalf of the accused.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. In the final arguments, the complainant reiterated its entire case, that the accused had availed loan facility from the complainant but failed to repay the said loan. The accused thus issued a cheque to the complainant in discharge of his legal liability. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured and after fulfilling the procedural formalities, the present complaint was filed.
21. While on the other hand, accused had refuted the case of the complainant on the ground that the accused neither had taken any loan from the complainant nor issued any cheque to the complainant in discharge of any liability. It was further argued on the behalf of the accused that the Digitally signed by complainant has filed a false case against the accused.
BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.05.16 15:44:04 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 7 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
22. Neither party has filed the written submissions.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
23. Under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881(hereinafter referred as Act), to held any person liable for the offence the following are the essential ingredients:
a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three 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.
24. In the present matter, the cheque in question (cheque) is dated 09.02.2017 and the same when presented for encashment was dishonoured vide return memo dated 14.02.2017 which means the same was presented within BHAWNA the statutory period of three months from the date on RATTAN Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 8 of 16 Date: 2026.05.16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN 15:44:10 +0530 which it was drawn. Thereafter the complainant sent the legal demand notice dated 10.03.2017 to the accused for the demand of the payment and the same was sent on the same day i.e. within statutory period of thirty days from the receipt of the information received regarding the dishonour of cheque.
25. The accused at the time of recording statement under section 313 of CrPC stated that he did not receive the legal demand notice. However, has admitted that one of the addresses mentioned on the legal demand notice is his correct address.
Thus, in that regard, it is appropriate to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled; 'C. C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed' reported as (2007) 6 SCC 555;
"13. According to Section 114 of the Act, read with Illustration (f) thereunder, when it appears to the Court that the common course of business renders it probable that a thing would happen, the Court may draw presumption that the thing would have happened, unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was not followed. Thus, Section 114 enables the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Consequently, the court can presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. When applied to BHAWNA communications sent by post, Section 114 enables the Court to presume that in the common course of RATTAN natural events, the communication would have been Digitally signed by delivered at the address of the addressee. But the BHAWNA RATTAN presumption that is raised under Section 27 of the Date: 2026.05.16 15:44:16 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 9 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN G.C. Act is a far stronger presumption. Further, while Section 114 of Evidence Act refers to a general presumption, Section 27 refers to a specific presumption. (Emphasis supplied.) "17 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 complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make the payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made the payment within 15 days of the receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complainant is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court alongwith the copy of 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 General Clauses Act and 114 of the Evidence Act." (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, it can be presumed that the accused had received the legal demand notice. Hence, the third ingredient is also established by the complainant.
26. Now, further in section 138 of the act, if the accused admits the fact that he has signed the cheque in question then the presumption under section 139 of the act, r/w section 118(a) of the act, arises.
Section 139 Presumption in favour of holder; It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
BHAWNA RATTAN Section 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments; Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 15:44:21 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 10 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
(a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
27. In the present matter, the accused had admitted that he signed the cheque in question. But has refuted the case of the complainant, by taking defence that the cheque in question was not issued by the accused to the complainant else it was given to JBL company in some different transaction.
28. Now, as per the mandate of the law, when the accused admits that he signed the cheque, then it is presumed that the same was given for a legally enforceable debt or other liability and presumption of the same lies in the favour of the complainant and to rebut the same presumption the burden of proof lies on the accused.
29. In the present matter, since the liability is disputed by the accused but, nonetheless, the presumption will be raised and burden of proof accordingly shifts to the accused. The accused can discharge the burden of presumption either through the cross examination of the complainant or through his own evidence.
BHAWNA
30. The cross examination of the complainant is the first RATTAN opportunity to discharge the burden. Since the right for Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 11 of 16 15:44:26 +0530 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN cross examination of the complainant was given to the accused, accordingly, the AR for the complainant entered into witness box as CW1.
31. During the cross examination, CW1 stated, will reproduce the relevant portions;
"The accused did not move any application for obtaining the loan. Vol. A tripartite loan agreement was executed between complainant, accused and Just Buy Live. The approved loan amount was approximately Rs 75,000/-. The loan was interest free and the term of finance was one month."
Now, it is hard to believe that loan/credit facility was given to the accused without any formal application, when a NBFC/complainant must be guided by some rules and regulations. Further the witness deposed that the approved loan amount was for Rs 75,000/-. However, the present cheque amounts to Rs 74,376/-, which is even less than the approved amount. Moreover, the complainant has even failed to clarify whether any loan amount was returned or not and how the present liability is calculated.
32. Further at this stage only will reproduce the relevant portions of the cross examination of CW1 dated 12.12.2025;
"It is correct that JBL company is not the party in the agreement BHAWNA Ex CW1/H. It is also correct that agreement Ex CW1/H does not RATTAN Digitally signed by bear any stamp or signature on behalf of JBL company." BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 15:44:32 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 12 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN Thus, the complainant neither has furnished on record any loan agreement nor any tripartite agreement if any, executed between the parties as stated above.
33. CW1 in further cross examination stated that;
"Loan of Rs 2 lakh was given to the accused in his account. It is correct that we have not placed any proof in respect of disbursal of loan amount to the accused. It is also correct that there is no document in respect of the account in which the loan amount was disbursed."
Now, there is stark contradiction between the testimonies of the witness on the loan amount itself. The complainant itself is unaware about the exact loan amount which was sanctioned/approved, which significantly do not appease to a reasonable mind that person lending some money/loan, but cannot even tell the exact figure of the loan advanced.
34. CW1 in his further cross examination stated;
"Ques. Is it correct that cheque in question was the security cheque?
Ans. No. At this stage, witness is confronted with page No. 10 of agreement which is Ex CW1/H (colly) where the cheque in BHAWNA question i.e. cheque No....... has been mentioned with the bank RATTAN details i.e. PNB Bank as security cheque." Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 15:44:38 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 13 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN Now, the cheque in question and the particulars of the cheque mentioned at page 10 of Ex CW1/H (colly) is same. The testimony of the witness is certainly not beyond doubt.
35. Now this was some appreciable portions of the cross examination of CW1 and after appreciating it, it is not difficult to say that there are anomalies in the case of the complainant, which undoubtedly, are sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and accordingly the burden of proof stands discharged by preponderance of probabilities and thus the onus shifts back to the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
36. Now when the onus has shifted back to the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt then, complainant has to prove its own case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed in the judgment titled as "Kaveri Plastics vs Mahdoom Bawa Bahurudeen Noorul" reported as 2025 INSC 1133;
6.4 The proposition that the penal provision has to be construed strictly was again asserted by this Court in K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora & Anr.(2009)10 SCC 48. In the context of provision of Sections 141 and 138 of the NI Act it was observed in para 17 of the judgment that penal statutes are to be construed strictly and that if conditions are scraped, the courts will insist upon strict literal compliance. It was stated that there is no question of inferential or implied compliance. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the liability must be one which can be legally BHAWNA enforceable. The penal provisions are always to be strictly RATTAN complied with. Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 15:44:44 +0530 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 14 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
37.Further placing reliance on, "Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh"
reported as (2023) 10 SCC 148;
45. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under section 139 does not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, once the accused has proved by preponderance of probabilities that, no debt or legal liability exists in a manner so pleaded by the complainant, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the existence of such debt as a matter of fact.
38. The complainant/CW1 however has failed to furnish any further cogent evidence either orally or in writing to show and prove that the alleged loan was ever given to the accused as claimed. In the absence of any credible witness or evidence it is difficult to infer any transaction of loan as claimed by the complainant.
39. Hence, it can be said that the complainant has failed to prove his case in the light of the settled principle of criminal law that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. BHAWNA RATTAN Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN Date: 2026.05.16 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 15 of 16 15:44:49 +0530 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN
40. Hence, in the light of the principles of law, the totality of facts, I am of the view, that accused is not guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Act, and thus accused Amir Khan is hereby acquitted.
Digitally signed by BHAWNA Announced in Open Court BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.05.16 15:44:53 on 16th day of May, 2026 +0530 (Bhawna Rattan) Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-10; South Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 16.05.2026 Ct. Cases 6483/2017 Page no. 16 of 16 Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. AMIR KHAN