Delhi District Court
Simranpal Singh Suri vs Hanish Nanda on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINERJEET KAUR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (N.I. ACT-03) SOUTH-WEST: DWARKA
COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLSW02-029145-2018
Ct. Case No. 26780/18
U/s. 138 N.I. Act.
Simranpal Singh vs. Hanish Nanda
Date of Institution of case : 28.07.2018
Date of which Judgment reserved : 27.10.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 19.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : DLSW02-029145-2018
2) Name of complainant : Simranpal Singh Suri
S/o Sh. G.S. Suri
R/o -JG1/77, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110018.
3) Name and address of accused : Hanish Nanda
S/o Sh. Ish Nanda
R/o A-167, 1st floor, Inderpuri,
Delhi - 110012.
4) Offence complained of : Section 138 N.I. Act
5) Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6) Final Order : Convicted for the offence punishable
under U/s. 138 N.I. Act.
7) Date of order : 19.12.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act") by Simranpal Singh (hereinafter "complainant") against the accused Hanish Nanda S/o Sh. Ish Nanda (hereinafter "accused").
Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 1/132. The accused is known to the complainant and was having good family terms with the complainant. It is stated that the accused was in financial crunch and requested the complainant for some monetary help in the month of March, 2014.
3. It is stated that in view of the friendly relation with the accused, the complainant acceded to the request for grant of friendly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) by cheques and cash on various dates & occasions as required and the accused has executed receipt / notes of all transactions on 15.03.2015 in the presence of witnesses.
4. It is further stated that on 15.03.2015 in discharge of his liability towards the complainant, the accused had handed over a post-dated cheque bearing No. 151289 dated 26.05.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Inderpuri, New Delhi - 110012 for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) for the purpose of repayment of the aforesaid loan amount to the complainant in lieu of the above-said liability. It is stated that the accused had assured the complainant that the said cheque will be honoured on its presentation and also acknowledged the balance friendly loan amount.
5. It is stated that on the assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment in his bank i.e. IDBI Bank Ltd., Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 18 whereupon he got to know that the cheque was dishonoured with reason 'Account Closed' vide return memo dated 27.05.2015.
6. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice dated 02.06.2015 through his advocate and demanded payment of the cheque amount. However, it is stated that the accused did not make the requisite payment of the dishonoured cheque within the stipulated time period of 15 days. Hence, the complainant instituted the present proceedings u/s 138 of NI Act.
7. Cognizance of the offence was taken by this Court and the accused was summoned vide order dated 04.07.2015. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused by the Court on 30.10.2015 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was listed for the complainant's evidence thereafter. During the Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 2/13 complainant's evidence, the complainant led oral and documentary evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Subsequently, upon the conclusion of the complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 281 of the Cr.P.C. on September 16, 2019, wherein all incriminating material was presented to the accused. The accused was also requested to personally explain the circumstances presented in evidence against him. Before the Court, the accused admitted that he had taken an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the complainant at a monthly interest rate of 20%. To date, he has repaid approximately Rs. 9-10 lakhs to the complainant. The complainant had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- for each day's default in payment of interest. The accused further stated that he had taken Rs. 3.5 lakhs in four to five instalments, and the cheque in question was presented to the complainant at the time of the first instalment as collateral for the loan amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. In addition to the cheque in question, the accused has also provided six to seven other cheques to the complainant, which are still in his possession. The accused had also given a promissory note to the complainant bearing his thumbprint. He further asserted that all these documents were presented as collateral. The cheque in question was a blank signed cheque. The accused indicated that the third or fourth instalment was of Rs. 1 lakh, which he withdrew from the complainant's account after the complainant requested that he withdraw approximately Rs. 1,75,000/- from the complainant's account, as he required Rs. 75,000/- to advance to another individual. The accused also mentioned that he received the legal notice, which was received by his neighbours on his behalf. The accused chose to present his defence evidence through his statement dated September 16, 2016.
9. Subsequently, detailed final arguments were presented before the court. The counsel representing the complainant vehemently asserted that the testimony of CW-1 and the documentary evidence presented on record conclusively prove the case of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. The counsel argued that the available material on record establishes the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act, in conjunction with Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 3/13 Section 139 of the NI Act. Furthermore, the counsel contended that the cross- examination of the complainant failed to effectively refute these presumptions. It was further argued that no oral or documentary evidence was presented on behalf of the accused to support his defence, which should have been based on the principle of balance of probabilities. Consequently, the counsel sought conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act.
10. On the other hand, the counsel representing the accused asserted that the complainant was unable to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The counsel further argued that the documents available on record indicate that the complainant lacked the necessary capacity to extend the alleged loan amount. The counsel drew the attention of the court to the testimony of CW-1, highlighting its inconsistencies and contradictions. Consequently, the counsel requested acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act.
11. The parties have relied upon the following judgments during their final arguments: Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 655; APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Ors. (2020) 12 SC 724; Central Bureau of Investigation v. VC Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 - Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54-; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441-; Jugesh Sehgal Vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC 683; Sripati Singh (Since Deceased Vs. State of Jharkhand 2021 SCC online SC 1002; Triyambak S. Hegde V. Sripad (2022) 1 SCC 742; Rangappa V. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441; Santosh Mittal Vs. Sudha Dayal 2014 LawSuit(Del) 3394; P.J. Thomas Vs. VijayaKumari 2014 CrLJ 2903; T. Vasanthakumar V. Vijaykumari 2015 Legal Eagle (SC) 353; Rajat Jain & Anr. V. Neeta Gupta 2017 LawSuit(Del) 2180; Kajal V. Vikas Marwah & Ors. 3025 LawSuit(Del) 1272; Dhanjit Singh Nanda Vs. State & Anr. 2009 LawSuit(Del) 1312; Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106; Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot V. State of Gujarat 2021 SCC Online SC 347; Hiten P. Dalal V. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16; I have read these and considered them at the time of writing this judgment.
Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 4/1312. The accused has been charged with the commission of an offence involving dishonour of a cheque that has been defined and made punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 also provides for certain presumptions which must be taken into account while adjudicating any complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The presumptions are provided under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The combined effect of Section 118(a), NI Act and Section 139, NI Act is that a presumption exists that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows:
"Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption has been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus onto the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt ."
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also analysed the relevant applicable provisions concerning the presumptions provided under the NI Act and laid down the conclusions in the case law titled as Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 :
2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 at page 432. The same are reproduced hereunder:-
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 5/13
25.1. 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.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the 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.
25.4. 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.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
14. The present case pertains to the dishonour of cheque bearing no. 151289 dated 26.05.2015 that was allegedly issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. The cheque bearing No. 151289 dated 26.05.2015 has been placed on record as Ex. CW1/1 and the cheque return memo dated 27.05.2015 has been placed on record as Ex. CW1/2. The return memo clearly reflects that the cheque was returned unpaid by the drawee bank on 27.05.2015 with reasons - 'Account Closed'.
15. As can be noted from the answers tendered by the accused at the time of framing of notice dated 30.10.2015, the issuance of the cheque and signatures appended on the cheque have been admitted by the accused. Further, vide statement qua admission/denial of documents U/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 23.02.2024, the accused has himself stated that he does not dispute the genuineness or correctness of the cheque in question (Ex. CW1/1) or the cheque dishonour memo (Ex. CW1/2). Hence, the complainant has been able to duly prove the issuance of the cheque in question and the cheque dishonour memo before the Court.
Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 6/1316. The accused has also attempted to contend that he did not receive the legal demand notice dated 02.06.2015. The accused has, however, admitted before the Court that the legal demand notice bears his correct address. It can be noted from the answers given by the accused during the recording of the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. that the accused has admitted the address mentioned in the legal notice to be his correct address.
17. In fact, the summons issued by this Court was also duly received by the accused, and the statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act r/w Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in this regard. The law on this aspect has been particularly laid down in the case law titled as C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri),wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 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 ignoring the statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
18. In view of the presumptions U/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and in light of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India above, it can be safely concluded that the accused had a clear intimation of the impending proceedings u/s 138 of NI Act and still failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, the objection taken by the accused regarding non-receipt of legal notice dated 17.05.2019 cannot be sustained.
19. Accordingly, the presumptions U/s 118 r/w 139 of NI Act are raised in favour of the complainant and against the accused. However, as has been noted in the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (supra), the aforesaid presumption is a rebuttable presumption and the accused has the right to raise a probable defence against the case of the complainant.
Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 7/1320. At this stage, the onus of rebutting the aforesaid statutory presumption shifts upon the accused and he is required to bring on record such facts and circumstances that may constitute a probable defence against the case of the complainant. The accused can do so by successfully raising and proving a competing version to the case of the complainant or by perforating the case of the complainant. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused. Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act come into operation. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumption is a presumption of law and not of fact, and that a mere plausible explanation by the accused does not suffice to rebut the same. The accused is required to bring on record such material which makes the non-existence of liability probable.
21. One of the principal defences raised by the accused is that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan amount. This plea, however, does not withstand scrutiny when tested on the basis of the evidence on record. The complainant has placed reliance upon his cash book (Ex. CW-1/D12), ledger accounts (Ex. CW-1/D15), bank statements including IDBI and ICICI accounts (Ex. CW-1/D14, Ex. CW-1/D17 and Ex. CW-1/D18), as well as his Income Tax Return for the relevant assessment year (Ex. CW-1/D14). These documents consistently reflect regular business activity, availability of funds, and sufficient cash flow during the relevant period. The entries therein have not been shown to be fabricated or manipulated. No expert evidence was led to challenge the genuineness of these documents, nor was any material contradiction elicited in cross-examination.
22. The accused has relied upon APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, (2020) 12 SCC 724, to contend that once the source of funds is questioned, the burden shifts upon the complainant. While the proposition of law is not disputed, the said judgment does not advance the case of the accused. In APS Forex, the complainant had given evasive replies and failed to produce contemporaneous Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 8/13 documentary evidence regarding the source of funds. In contrast, in the present case, the complainant has produced complete financial records, which remain unimpeached.
23. On the contrary, in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the statutory presumption operates, the complainant is not required to prove his financial capacity unless the accused first discharges his burden by raising a probable defence. Minor inconsistencies or the non- examination of persons who may have assisted the complainant do not rebut the presumption. Applying the said principle, this Court finds that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence so as to shift the burden back upon the complainant.
24. The complainant has further relied upon written acknowledgments executed by the accused, including the promissory note-cum-receipt dated 15.03.2015 for ₹20,00,000/- (Ex. CW-1/D4) and other receipts acknowledging amounts of ₹2,00,000/-, ₹4,00,000/- and ₹6,00,000/- exhibited as Ex. CW-1/D5, Ex. CW-1/D6 and Ex. CW-1/D9. The signatures and thumb impressions on these documents are not disputed. No application was moved by the accused seeking examination of these documents by a handwriting or fingerprint expert.
25. The defence plea that there were no friendly relations between the parties stands belied by the admitted receipt of money and repeated transactions over a period of time. The continuity of dealings reflected from the documentary evidence clearly establishes acquaintance and trust between the parties.
26. The argument of the accused that Sandeep was not examined as a witness is also without merit. In Kalabhai Kachhot v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that minor inconsistencies or non-examination of certain witnesses do not rebut the presumption unless the defence is able to show that such omission goes to the root of the case. The complainant in the present case has proved the transaction through documentary evidence, and the burden never shifted upon him to multiply witnesses.
27. The accused has alleged that interest at the rate of 20% per month along with a daily penalty of ₹500 was charged and that he has already paid ₹9-10 lakhs towards Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 9/13 interest. This plea remains a bald assertion. No receipt, bank entry, acknowledgment or contemporaneous record has been produced to substantiate such alleged payments. Even the dates or mode of payment have not been disclosed. In the present case, despite alleging extortionate interest, the accused did not lodge any complaint or issue any contemporaneous protest.
28. Against the aforesaid evidence, the accused stepped into the witness box as DW-
1. However, far from denting the complainant's case, the testimony of the accused is marked by material inconsistencies, evasive answers, and a complete lack of corroboration, which cumulatively reinforce the complainant's version rather than rebut it.
29. On the aspect of advancement of the loan, the accused vacillated on basic particulars. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the amount was advanced in "5-6 instalments". However, during cross-examination conducted on 06.02.2023, he narrowed the number to "4-5 instalments". When confronted with this contradiction and asked to clarify which version was correct, the accused could only state that the figures were "approximate". Such uncertainty with respect to a substantial financial transaction undermines the credibility of the defence and indicates an absence of a consistent and truthful narrative.
30. The accused's stand regarding repayment is even more contradictory. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he claimed to have repaid "₹9-10 lakhs" to the complainant. However, in his examination-in-chief dated 16.09.2022, he asserted repayment of "₹11-12 lakhs". During cross-examination, he once again reverted to stating that he had repaid "approximately ₹9-10 lakhs". Despite these shifting claims, the accused has not produced a single receipt, bank deposit slip, passbook entry, or independent witness to substantiate any repayment. When questioned as to why no receipts were insisted upon for such large alleged payments, the accused had no explanation to offer. His silence on this material aspect is telling.
31. In law, where a party asserts repayment of a substantial amount but withholds the best evidence within his control, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference.
Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 10/13Accordingly, an adverse inference is drawn against the accused under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, and the plea of repayment is held to be unproved.
32. The accused further attempted to take the defence that he had signed blank promissory notes and blank cheques, which were later misused. This plea does not survive judicial scrutiny. In his testimony, the accused initially claimed that he signed "five blank promissory notes and seven to eight blank cheques", but under cross- examination admitted that he could not recall the exact number and had no documentary proof in support of this assertion. More significantly, the promissory note placed on record as Ex. CW-1/D4 is a fully filled-in document bearing date, stamp, and the admitted signatures of the accused, with no indication of blank spaces, overwriting, or interpolation. The accused neither alleged forgery nor sought examination of the document by any expert.
33. Even otherwise, the legal position is settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2021) 3 SCC 372, has categorically held that even a cheque issued as security would attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act once it is filled up towards a subsisting liability. Thus, the defence of blank signed instruments is both factually unsupported and legally untenable.
34. Further, in P.J. Thomas v. Vijayakumari, 2014 Cri LJ 2903, and T. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari, 2015 Legal Eagle (SC) 353, it has been categorically held that mere denial does not rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The defence regarding repayment and interest, therefore, deserves rejection.
35. The defence version also fails the test of normal human conduct. It is improbable that a rational person would borrow a sum of ₹3.5 lakhs at an interest of 20% per month with a daily penalty when alternative sources of finance at far lesser rates were available. No circumstance has been shown which compelled the accused to accept such allegedly oppressive terms.
36. In Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm, (2008) 7 SCC 655, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts are entitled to test the defence on the Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 11/13 touchstone of prudence and probabilities. If the defence appears inherently improbable from a prudent man's perspective, the presumption remains unrebutted. Applying the said principle, this Court finds the defence of the accused to be improbable and unworthy of acceptance.
37. The accused has also raised the plea that the complainant is an unlicensed moneylender. No evidence has been led to show that the complainant was engaged in systematic moneylending as a business. The complainant's financial records rather indicate business income.
38. In Rajat Jain & Anr. v. Neeta Gupta, 2017 LawSuit (Del) 2180, it was held that the giving of a few loans does not establish that a person is engaged in the business of moneylending. Further, in Kajal v. Vikas Marwah, 2014 LawSuit (Del) 1272, and Dhanjit Singh Nanda v. State, 2009 LawSuit (Del) 1312, it was held that even a moneylender is not barred from instituting a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.
39. In view of the foregoing appreciation of evidence, this Court finds that the complainant has successfully proved all the foundational facts necessary to attract the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issuance of the cheque by the accused, his admitted signature thereon, its presentation within the period of validity, dishonour on presentation, issuance, and deemed service of statutory legal notice, and failure of the accused to make payment within the stipulated period, all stand duly established.
40. The accused, upon whom the burden had shifted, has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions even on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. His defence is riddled with material contradictions, unsupported assertions, and conduct inconsistent with that of a prudent person. The plea of partial repayment, exorbitant interest, blank signed instruments, absence of friendly relations, non-service of legal notice, and alleged illegality of the transaction have each been found to be either factually unsubstantiated or legally untenable. On the contrary, the defence evidence has fortified the complainant's case.
Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 12/1341. Accordingly, this Court holds that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and that its dishonour attracts the penal consequences contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. All the ingredients of the offence stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.
42. The accused Hanish Nanda is therefore held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2025.
(Vinerjeet Kaur) Judicial magistrate First Class (NI Act)-06, South- West, Dwarka 19.12.2025 Ct. Case No. 26780/18 Page No. 13/13