Delhi District Court
Suraj Yadav vs Ram Avtar Sharma on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. URVI GUPTA,
JMFC NI ACT-01, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
1. Complaint case : 528334/2016 GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02
14:26:15
Number +0530
3. Name & Address of : Sh. Suraj Yadav
Complainant S/o Late Sh. Jamuna
Prasad
R/o D-30, Lalita Block,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052
3. Name & Address of : Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma
Accused S/o Sh. Lokman Shamra
R/o L-252, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi -110052.
4. Offence complained : Section 138 r/w 141
Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
5. Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty
Ct. Cases 528334/2016
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma Page no. 1 of 23
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of institution : 16.10.2015
8. Date on which case : 13.12.2025
was reserved for
judgment
9. Date of judgment : 02.04.2026
Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02
14:26:22
+0530
Ct. Cases 528334/2016
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma Page no. 2 of 23
JUDGMENT
1. The present Judgment is a result of culmination of trial initiated on the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') by the complainant Sh. Suraj Yadav against the accused, Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The version of complainant is that complainant had given a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 1,80,000/- through cheque and Rs.20,000/- in cash) in November 2014 to the accused for 10 months at a monthly interest rate of 4%. Thereafter, the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 073525 dated 03.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State bank of India, Shastri Nagar, Delhi i.e. cheque in question, i.e Ex CW1/B in discharge of the liability, with an assurance that the cheque will be honoured. Despite repeated demands and requests, the accused failed to pay any amount and then the cheque was presented which however, got dishonoured. The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 09.09.2015 which is Ex-CW1/C.
3. The complainant, thereafter, sent a legal notice dated 10.09.2015, Ex-CW1/D to accused. The speed post receipts is Ex- CW1/E and courier receipt is Ex-CW1/F and tracking report is Ex- CW1/G. Despite service of the legal notice, accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the complainant within the statutory period.
Digitally
Ct. Cases 528334/2016 signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA Date: Page no. 3 of 23
2026.04.02
14:26:29
+0530
4. On summoning, accused entered his appearance and requested for settlement of this matter. The matter was thereafter settled for the cheque amount and separate statement of the accused was recorded wherein he undertook to the cheque amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant on 27.06.2017 . Thereafter, on failure to make the payment, and on his subsequent appearance, it was duly ensured that accused has received the copy of complaint along with relevant documents. Then, notice under section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') was framed against accused on 26.09.2017. The contents of notice were read over and explained to accused in vernacular to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Plea of defence of accused was duly recorded on the same day.
PLEA OF DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
5. In plea of defence, accused stated that the cheque in question was given to the complainant as blank signed security cheque for the loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- taken by him from the complainant through cheque at a monthly rate of interest of 5% . He further stated repayment of Rs.1,20,000/- qua the said loan. He admitted receiving of the legal demand notice. He also admitted his liability of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. the cheque amount towards the complainant, subsequent to which he was prompted by his counsel to state otherwise. Thereafter, accused was granted opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.
Digitally signed by URVI URVI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 14:26:34 +0530 Ct. Cases 528334/2016 Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma Page no. 4 of 23 COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
6. Accused filed his application u/s 145(2) NI Act and was given opportunity to cross examine the complainant from 30.01.2018. Despite repeated opportunities, the accused failed to cross examine the complainant, and his right to cross examination was closed vide order dated 12.07.2019. Thereafter, warrants had to be issued against the accused and he again sought time to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said order was never challenged by the accused. No application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was also moved. Again on subsequent hearings, settlement was pressed upon and the matter was kept pending for the same.
7. During the trial, complainant had led documentary evidence against the accused to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. His evidence of affidavit was adopted and it remained unchallenged as the accused never cross examine the complainant.
8. The complainant relied on the following documents to prove his case:
• Ex.CW1/A -- Copy of the bank statement of complainant to show loan through cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-.
• Ex.CW1/B -- Original Cheque in question
bearing no. 073525, dated 03.09.2015
• Ex.CW1/C -- Bank Return Memo dated
09.09.2015
• Ex.CW1/D -- Legal Demand Notice dated
10.09.2015
Ct. Cases 528334/2016 Digitally
signed by
URVI
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma URVI GUPTA Page no. 5 of 23
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02
14:26:41
+0530
• Ex.CW1/E and Ex CW1/F - Original
Postal receipt and Courier receipt
• Ex.CW1/G -- Tracking report indicating item
'delivered'
9. The matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC r/w S.281 Cr.P.C
10. After repeated warrants against the accused and thereafter on his requests for taking time to make payment, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. on 22.03.2024. repeatedly accused had sought to make payment of the cheque amount which was allowed by the court. All the incriminating evidences were put to accused. Accused in his statement admitted that the cheque in question bears his signatures. He denied filling other particulars. He further admitted taking a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the complainant, for which he had issued the cheque in question as a security cheque. He further stated that he made a repayment of Rs.1,20,000/- out of the said loan. His stated that the matter had been settled between the parties but the complainant failed to comply with the settlement. He denied any liability towards the complainant and opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. Accused in support of his defence, examined himself as DW-1. Both oral and documentary evidence was led by the Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA 2026.04.02 Page no. 6 of 23 14:26:47 +0530 accused in the present case. he placed on record two settlement document allegedly entered between the parties i.e Mark A and Ex DW1/1 to establish the factum that the case has already been settled between the parties. He submitted that the complainant had failed to comply with the settlement and failed to withdraw this case.
12. The accused has relied upon the following documents :
Mark A - scanned printout of settlement dated 30.09.2022 DW1/1 - original settlement agreement dated 21.07.2016
13. The ld. Counsel for the complainant duly cross examined the accused. The accused repeatedly emphasised about the present matter being settled and admitted his statement recorded on oath before the court regarding his due towards the complainant. His documents produced at this stage were questioned on their genuiness and as to why were they not produced at the right time i.e. to cross examine the complainant on these documents, which was vaguely answered by the accused. The accused's only reliance was placed on the settlement agreement which was challenged as forged by the counsel for the complainant.
14. Thereafter, by the separate statement of the accused , his defence evidence was closed on 28.04.2025.
Digitally
signed by
URVI
Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI GUPTA
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 Page no. 7 of 23 14:26:55 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has proved his case and nothing substantial or contradictory has come out in the cross-examination of the complainant. He further argued that the complainant has established the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act while the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him under law by leading any proper evidence as per law or punching any kind of loopholes in the complainant's case as he failed to cross examine the complainant. He has reiterated that the conduct of the accused has been very lackadaisical and he has time and again taken different stance to dodge his liability towards the complainant. The liability of the accused is clear from his plea of defence in notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and repeatedly statements made before the court to pay the cheque amount.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused had given security cheque to the complainant and there is no amount due on the accused. He further stated that the complainant had settled the matter with the accused as the agreement placed in record, and he was to withdraw the case but has failed to do so. He alleged that there is no liability on the accused as per the settlement. Hence, the accused has rebutted the presumption under law and is entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
Ct. Cases 528334/2016 GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02
14:27:00
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma +0530 Page no. 8 of 23
17. I have perused the case file, documents placed on record by both the parties and duly considered the submission made by Ld. Counsel for complainant and accused.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT
18. Before delving into discussion over the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides in trial of offence under Section 138 NI Act. In Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) SC Hon'ble Supreme Court has divided the ingredients forming the basis of the offence under Section138 of the NI Act in the following structure:
1) The drawing of a cheque by person on an account maintained by him.
2) The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or othis liability;
3) Presentation of the cheque to the bank arranged to be paid from that account,
4) The return of the cheque by the drawee bank.
5) A notice by the payee or the holder in due course demanding payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days.
Digitally signed by URVI Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI GUPTA Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 Page no. 9 of 23 14:27:07 +0530
6) The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
19. Thisefore, the accused can be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act only if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Moreover, conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled in addition to above-mentioned ingredients. Hence, unless these conditions are met, accused cannot be held guilty.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE With Respect To First, Third And Fourth Ingredient:
20. It is pertinent from the pleadings and evidence that complainant has proved the original cheque vide Ex-CW1/B, which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused and is duly signed by the accused. Accused, during his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted that the cheque in question Ex-CW1/B bears his signatures. It was not disputed that cheque in question was presented within period of validity. It is also not disputed that the cheque in question was not drawn on his account. The cheque in question was returned unpaid for reason 'Funds Insufficient' vide return memo Ex-CW1/C. The said reason for dishonour is duly covered within S.138 of NI Act itself . Reference can be drawn from NEPC Micon Ltd. & Ors. v. Magma Leasing Ltd (1999) SC and Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) SC. The accused has not disputed the genuiness and correctness of the cheque Digitally Ct. Cases 528334/2016 signed by URVI Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma URVI GUPTA Page no. 10 of 23 GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 14:27:14 +0530 drawn on his account, return memo, even in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Therefore, requirement of first, third and fourth ingredients stand fulfilled in the present matter.
With Respect To fifth and sixth Ingredient:
21. In case of CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed 2007 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that giving a legal notice to the drawer before filing of complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is a mandatory requirement. As far as proof of fifth and sixth ingredient is concerned, accused during the stage of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. the accused has admitted receiving the legal demand notice. However, in his cross examination as DW-1 accused has on the contradictory, denied receiving the legal demand notice form the complainant but he has admitted that the legal demand notice Ex CW1/D bears his correct address details . On one hand, the accused has admitted received the legal demand notice but later has denied the same. Though the accused has given contradictory answers, but, it is an admitted fact that the address on the legal demand notice is his correct address. Perusal of documents Ex-CW1/D, Ex-CW1/E, Ex CW 1/F, and Ex CW1/G reveals that legal demand notice was sent on the address which was admitted by the accused to be his correct address during his cross examination. Ex CW1/G i.e. the tracking report also reads that the item was 'delivered' to the addressee, the said documentary proof has also not been challenged by the accused. Moreover, even if taken otherwise, perusal of the record shows that service on the accused was effected on the same address as is mentioned on the legal demand notice. Warrants have also been Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 Page no. 11 of 23 14:27:20 +0530 received back executed on the same address. Hence, it is a proven fact that the accused was residing at the same address only as is mentioned on the legal demand notice.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C Alavi Haji (Supra) held that it shall be presumed in terms of Section 27 of General Clauses Act that service of notice has been effected when it has been sent on the correct address. It is clear from Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, that once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing to the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected. Then the requirements under proviso (b) of Section 138 stands complied.
23. Therefore, the court finds that the legal demand notice in the present case has been successfully served to the accused on his address. Furthermore, it is also clear from the record that accused had failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of notice. Hence, fifth and sixth ingredient also stand fulfilled.
With respect to second ingredient:
24. With respect to second ingredient, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the present case, accused, during his notice u/s 251 Cr.PC. and statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted that cheque in question Ex-CW1/B bears his signatures and the same has not been disputed during the entire trial. As per the scheme of NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumptions shall be Digitally Ct. Cases 528334/2016 signed by Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma URVI URVI GUPTA Date: Page no. 12 of 23 GUPTA 2026.04.02 14:27:31 +0530 drawn, which lead to shifting of onus on accused. The collective effect of provisions of Section 118 and Section 139 NI Act is a presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression 'shall', which shows that the presumption provided for in the Act is a 'presumption of law' and makes it imperative for the court to raise such presumptions. In the recent judgment, Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramaniyan (2021) SC, the larger bench of the Supreme Court, held that:
"U/s 118 & 139, once issuance of cheque and signature admitted, it is required to presume that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
25. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) SC that presumption under these sections is rebuttable in nature and standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probability. To rebut the same, accused can rely upon the material put forth by the complainant or lead his independent evidence. Therefore, accused can rebut the presumption u/s 139 NI Act either by punching hole in the version of complainant by cross- examination of complainant and complainant witnesses or by leading his defence evidence or both. In the instant case, accused has failed to cross examine the complainant to rebut the presumption but has lead DE.
Digitally signed by URVI URVI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 14:27:40 Ct. Cases 528334/2016 +0530 Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma Page no. 13 of 23
26. In the present case, it is averred by the complainant that the accused had approached the complainant for a friendly loan. Due to the friendly relations, the complainant gave a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 to the accused (Rs. 1,80,000/- through cheque and Rs. 20,000/- in cash) for 10 months in November 2014 at monthly interest of 4%. The factum of advancing loan on Rs. 1,80,000 by way of cheque is proved by the complainant through his bank account statement entry which is Ex. CW1/A and is also mentioned in his evidence affidavit. The said document has not been disputed by the accused. Rather, the accused had admitted taking the loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the complainant through cheque in his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C at a monthly interest rate of 5%. He has also admitted issuing the cheque in question to the complainant against the loan taken by him. Hence, there is no dispute about the advancement of loan i.e. the transaction in question by the complainant to the accused. With regards to the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- advanced by the complainant in cash, no question has been raised by the accused. He has not averred anything regarding not taking the said amount anywhere in his statement before the court. He has even failed to cross examine the complainant at all to cast any doubt on the claim as averred by the complainant . Neither in his defence evidence, has he lead any proof about it.
27. Rather, perusal shows that the accused has in his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. admitted his liability to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (i.e. the cheque amount) to the complainant. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajesh Agarwal v. State & Anr. (2010) has held that Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA 2026.04.02 Page no. 14 of 23 14:27:51 +0530 statement of accused u/s 251 Cr.P.C.is crucial and if the accused admits liability or doesn't dispute the issuance of cheque and signature, the Magistrate can proceed to pass judgment on that admission itself. Even in the case of V.S Yadav v. Reena (2010), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had stated that a mere denial by the accused is of no value if the accused has admitted his liability earlier. The accused had also repeatedly expressed his desire to settle the matter for the cheque amount and his statement on oath to this effect has been recorded and been duly signed by the accused on 27.06.2017 wherein he has undertaken to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant, which is duly exhibited as Ex DW-1/DX1 and the said fact has been admitted by the accused in his cross examination. Moreover, at various times, accused had submitted in the court that he is settling the matter with the complainant as is evident from the record and is admitted by him in his cross examination. It is quite unlikely of an accused person to express settlement for the cheque amount, when he has no liability due upon him.
28. The defence raised by the accused is that he has repaid Rs.1,20,000/- against the loan of Rs.1,80,000/- and the matter was settled between the parties. However, he failed to bring any proof of repayment qua the same. He has even failed to cross examine the complaint to bring any dispute about the genuineness of the claim. It is somewhat unreasonable of a prudent man to not have any proof of repayment or acknowledgment about his repayment amount to such huge amount. In his entire defence evidence, accused has failed to state anything about the repayment made by Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA 2026.04.02 14:27:57 Page no. 15 of 23 +0530 him. His only averment is limited to the settlement between him and the complainant. If there was any repayment done by him, there would be some averment and proof with the accused which has not been the case. Hence, the defence taken by the accused is difficult to believe in.
29. The other defence taken by the accused in his examination is that he had settled the matter with the complainant as per their settlement agreement which is Ex. DW1/1 and Mark A. He alleges that as per his statement and the agreement, the complainant had to withdraw this complaint but the complainant has failed to comply with the same. Firstly, the said document Ex DW1/1 was never put to the complainant ever to bring the truthfulness and veracity of the same. No reasonable justification has been given by the accused to this fact in his cross examination. The accused had failed to cross examine the complainant. Hence, it can be said that the document i.e. Ex DW1/1 has never stood the anvil of cross examination as per the evidence law. Therefore, it can never be gathered if the complainant had signed on the document/ executed which the accused is relying on. The accused could have very well confronted the complainant with this document to extract his version complainant but the said opportunity was never given to the complainant. The complainant side had suggested the documents to be false and fabricated but no further step was taken by the accused. Such a document when could be put but is not put to the complainant cannot be relied upon only by bringing in his defence evidence as the complainant was denied an opportunity to explain the document. Reference can be made to P. Suresh v.
Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.02 Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma 14:28:03 Page no. 16 of 23 +0530 Shanmugam 2023 SC and in Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi 2001 SC. Even if taken otherwise, perusal shows that Ex. DW1/1 was executed in 2016 and the accused has nowhere in his defence recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C in 2017 referred to any such settlement or document. Even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has not made any explicit references to such a settlement agreement. He only avers that there has been a settlement between the parties in the connected case. This fact has been admitted by the accused in his cross examination. Hence, it can be considered as an afterthought brought by the accused. Despite its existence prior in time, no reasonable justification has been given by the accused to not put it to the complainant. Moreover, if the contents of the document are perused, it doesn't point out to extinguishment/ discharge of liability on the accused as per law or any repayment made by the accused as was stated in his notice and statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The factum of existence of liability is already admitted and established as above. The contents of the document are limited to the extent that both the parties have agreed to withdraw the cases instituted against each other in different courts. Accordingly, it has no legal impact on the present complaint case/legal proceedings.
30. Qua the other settlement dated 30.09.2022 which is Mark A, it was duly objected by the ld. Counsel for the complainant on the mode of proof, a certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act was produced by the accused later, but it was never made a part of the record. However, the document was never exhibited by the accused. Even it taken otherwise, no reference of the settlement being existing has been made by the accused in his statement u/s Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2026.04.02 Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma 14:28:10 Page no. 17 of 23 +0530 313 Cr.P.C. Also, the document was never put to the complainant as the accused had failed to cross examine the complainant . It cannot be hence gathered if the document bears the signature of the complainant or if he has admitted its execution. If the document was in existence prior, it could have been put to the complainant but it was never done. No reasonable explanation has been given by the accused for the said lapse. The document has never crossed the anvil of cross examination. The document relied upon by the accused was never put to the complainant and hence he never had an opportunity to explain, deny or clarify the document. It is a settled law of evidence that such a document cannot be relied upon subsequently. The omission to confront the complainant with the document renders it inadmissible and devoid of any probative value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2006 SC, Darshana (supra) that such documents cannot be relied upon by the accused and cannot be read in evidence, and are liable to be ignored while appreciating evidence. The original document was never produced by the accused and no reason had been given for non production of the original document. Such a document if existing between the parties could have been very well been produced in time by the accused. Moreover, perusal of the document doesn't establish the fact that the present complaint case in not maintainable. It is only limited to the fact that the parties have settled the matter and the matter shall be withdrawn by the complainant. Rather, it enforces the statement that there is a due of Rs 2,00,000/- upon the accused which he the complainant is ready to forego. The document is being relied upon by the accused and Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA 2026.04.02 Page no. 18 of 23 14:28:26 +0530 hence he is relying on its content including the fact that the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is due upon him. Hence, the document doesn't discharges the accused of his otherwise admitted legally enforceable debt and is hence not relevant.
31. Both the documents nowhere state about any repayment made by the accused as was alleged by him in his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. Moreover, if these document were in existence and were executed by both the parties, the accused didn't make any reference of the same despite repeated statements in the court about his settlement with the complainant. He never mentioned about any document existing qua the same. Even so, the accused has made no reference of the other cases between the parties, anywhere in his evidence as is otherwise stated to be a part of their settlement, on whose basis this case had to be withdrawn. Hence, this makes it difficult to believe in the version of the accused.
32. The accused has further stated in his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and S.313 Cr.P.C that the cheque in question was issued by him to the complainant against the loan taken by him, as a blank signed security cheque and he has no due towards the complainant. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2021) SC, that a cheque given as security is not excluded from the purview of Section 138 of the NI Act unless it is proved that no liability subsisted at the time of its presentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that cheque issued as security cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. It is only when accused pays the amount within the time fixed by the parties, cheque given as a Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA 2026.04.02 Page no. 19 of 23 14:28:48 +0530 security cannot be presented. However, once, accused fails to make the payment within stipulated time and the said time period is not extended by the parties, cheque given for security can be presented for encashment. Hence, it is undisputed that the cheque in question was issued towards a legal due and there is no proof of discharge of the said liability.
33. In the present case, the fact that the liability existed on the accused is already established by his own admissions and statement on record. Nothing has come forth to show that the payment qua the transaction has already been made. The existence of the alleged agreement between the parties to withdraw the present case is not sufficient to discharge the accused of the legally enforceable liability. As the accused has not been able to prove that no liability existed at the time of presentation of the cheque in question by the complainant, his defense of the cheque being given as security is also untenable.
34. The accused had been repeatedly given opportunities to cross examine the complainant to cast a doubt on his version but was never availed by him. It is a settled law that the onus lies on the person who alleges something to be true. The accused has failed to discharge the onus on his as levied by virtue of S.139 of NI Act. Mere assertion or bald denials cannot be treated to have proved the version of the accused in absence of any cogent evidence.
35. The accused has taken the defence that the he has no liability toward the complainant. No steps as a prudent reasonable Digitally signed by URVI Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma 2026.04.02 14:28:56 Page no. 20 of 23 +0530 man have been taken by the accused to ask for the return of the cheques issued by his or any steps taken to prevent the misuse of his cheque by the complainant. The accused has not placed on record any complaint with respect to the alleged misuse cheques. Every prudent man is expected to take some legal steps when he gets aware of his cheques being misused. The accused has failed to satisfy the court on this point as well. Misuse of security cheques must be affirmatively established. In light of this inaction, the accused's claim of misuse of cheque appears to lack genuineness and bona fide.
36. The plea that all other particulars in the cheque except the signatures have been not been filled by the accused is not tenable in terms of S. 20 of NI Act. S. 20 of the NI Act provides that the holder of a signed cheque, i.e., the complainant, has the authority to fill in the particulars and complete the instrument. It is a settled law that even if a cheque is blank or partly incomplete, if it is handed over signed by the drawer and handed over, filling of details by the complainant dies not invalidate the cheque. Reliance can be placed on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar 2019 SC. The fact that the cheques were signed and handed over by the accused to the complainant is undisputed in the present case as the same is admitted in notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C.
37. Even in his examination, accused has failed to prove that there existed no liability upon him or that the same has been legally discharged. Nothing has come forth that can lead to rebuttal of presumption raised in favour of the complainant, once the signatures on the cheque are admitted.
Digitally signed by Ct. Cases 528334/2016 URVI URVI GUPTA Date:
Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma GUPTA 2026.04.02 14:29:07 Page no. 21 of 23 +0530
38. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has successfully cross examined the accused and has brought certain inconsistencies in the version of the accused. In his cross examination the accused has stated that he has filed no criminal case against the complainant but however, he has produced the documents which support otherwise. In his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had admitted receiving the legal demand notice but denied it during his cross examination. He has averred in his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C that he has made repayment but hasn't stated anything about it in his defence evidence . In his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C accused admitted his liability of cheque amount, while in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C he denied any liability existing in him. Further more, he repeatedly emphasised in his statements in S.251 Cr.P.C and statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that out of Rs.
1,80,000/- loan amount, he has repaid Rs. 1,20,000/-, hence impliedly certain amount was pending to be repaid but then he has denied any liability towards the complainant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All of these contradictory stances also make it difficult to believe in the version of the accused or for the court to rely upon his testimonies. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has alleged the document relied on by the accused as forged but the accused has failed to lead any steps to prove otherwise.
39. Nothing substantial has come forth in the defence evidence that could be considered as to destroy the version of the complainant. The accused has failed to cross examine the complainant or the documents relied upon by the complainant. The denial of liability by the accused is, hence, not supported by any Digitally signed by URVI URVI GUPTA Ct. Cases 528334/2016 GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma 14:29:19 +0530 Page no. 22 of 23 proper evidence on record. Mere denial of the complainant's allegations is insufficient to rebut the presumption under the act. The burden of proof has not been discharged by the accused. Thus, the accused has also failed to dispute the factum of liability on him.
40. The accused has hence failed to show any proof about the fact that there didn't exist any liability on him , or even if it exists, it was for a lessor amount than what is claimed by the complainant that would entitle him to an acquittal.
41. In view of the above considerations, it can be said that accused has failed to raise suspicion in the version narrated by the complainant. The case of the complainant has been consistent throughout the course of trial. Therefore, in the result of the analysis of the present case, accused Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
42. This judgment contains 23 pages and each page bears the signature of the undersigned.
43. Copy of the judgment be uploaded as per rules.
Pronounced in an open court today. Digitally signed by URVI URVI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 14:29:30 +0530 (URVI GUPTA) J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central, THC/Delhi/02.04.2026 Ct. Cases 528334/2016 Suraj Yadav Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma Page no. 23 of 23