Delhi District Court
Sumit vs Ritu Rathi on 19 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANGI MANGLA,
JMFC (NI Act) - 05
WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. : DLWT020310592022
CT. CASE NO. : 4220/2022
CASE TITLE : SUMIT Vs.
RITU RATHI
19.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Complaint Case number : 4220/2022
2. Name of the complainant : SUMIT
S/O Shri Ramesh
Residence at: C-3/158 2nd Floor,
Rohini Sector-5, North West,
Delhi-110085
Μ.7838341854
Email
[email protected]
3. Name and address of the : RITU RATHI
accused Residence at: G-834, Block K,
Part 1, Village Palam, Palam
Extension South West Delhi,
Delhi-110045
Also at
NPRV ADVISORS PVT LTD
RZ-267, Gopal Nagar, Phase II,
Najafgarh, South West, Delhi
110043
Μ. 9667970952
4. Offence complained of or : Under Section 138 of the proved Negotiable Instruments Act, Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:06:38 +0530 1881.
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final Order : CONVICTION
7. Date of Institution : 19.12.2022
8. Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2026 JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter, Ct.
Cases No. 4220/2020 filed by complainant against the dishonour of cheque bearing No. 000347 dated 01.10.2022 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Gurgaon Sector -31, Branch, Sco/F-23, Sector 31, Gurgaon 122002 (henceforth, the cheque in question).
2. Briefly stated, the facts that in June 2020, the complainant approached the accused through the reference of his friend Rakesh Panwar for arranging Canada Work Visa for his brother-in-law Rahul. The accused represented herself as a Director of NPRV Advisors Private Limited and assured the complainant that she could complete the necessary formalities for obtaining the said visa. Relying upon the representation and assurance of the accused, the complainant agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:06:42 +0530 2,00,000/- for the said services. The complainant accordingly paid the said amount in installments. Initially, Rs. 50,000/- was paid through Rakesh Panwar. Thereafter, Rs. 70,000/- was transferred in account on 24.07.2020 and Rs. 80,000/- was paid on 10.02.2021, thereby completing the total payment of Rs.
2,00,000/-. After receiving the payment, the accused also collected various documents of Rahul including ID proofs, educational certificates, photographs, and original passport on the pretext of initiating the visa process. However, despite receiving the entire payment, the accused neither arranged the visa nor returned the money to the complainant and continued to delay the matter on one pretext or another. After repeated requests by the complainant through phone calls, SMS, and WhatsApp messages, the accused issued cheque in question in favor of the complainant in discharge of Legal debt/ liability towards complainant. On presentation, the cheque in question was returned unpaid with remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide return memo dated 06.10.2022.
3. Thereafter, complainant sent a Legal notice dated 19.10.2022 to the accused through registered post calling upon her to pay the outstanding amount. It is the case of the complainant that despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.03.19 15:06:45 +0530
5. Pre summoning evidence affidavit was filed and the cognizance was taken u/s 138 NI Act on 19.05.2023 and summons were issued to accused thereupon.
6. Notice was framed against the accused on 15.01.2024 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Application u/s 145(2) was orally pleaded and in consideration of no objection, the same was allowed.
7. The complainant has examined himself as CW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/1. He has relied upon the documents : -
Statement of account of
1. Ex.CW1/A
complainant.
2. Ex.CW1/B Whatsapp Chats between
complainant and accused.
3. Ex.CW1/C
Certificate u/s 65 B IEA.
4. Ex.CW1/D Original cheque.
5. Ex.CW1/E Return memo.
6. Ex. CW1/F Copy of Legal Notice.
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:06:48 +0530
7. Ex.CW1/G Postal receipts.
8. Ex. CW1/H Tracking report.
8. CW1/complainant was examined in chief on 09.12.2024. Cross examined in part on 03.02.2025 and discharged after further examination on 13.01.2026. Closing CE, matter was listed for SA.
9. The accused was examined and her statement was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 29.01.2026 after all the incriminating evidence and the documents on record were put to her. Accused had chosen to lead evidence in her defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for DE.
10. On 17.02.2026, on statement of accused regarding her non willingness to lead DE, DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
11. Both the Counsels led their oral submissions in length. Rebuttal submissions also taken from both the counsels. The submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the judgments relied on by the parties have been considered.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:06:51 +0530
12. To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following: -
i. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
ii. the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
iii. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
iv. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
v. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
vi. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
13. Section 139 NIA mentions the presumption in favor of holder and reads as under:-
"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".
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:06:54 +0530 Section 139 NIA provides for raising of the presumption when the cheque is received by the holder in lieu of debt/ liability (whole or in part) and the cheque must qualify the requirements laid down in s. 138 NIA. Further, by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar exports v. Sharma carpets(2009) 2 SCC 513, it was made clear that the presumption under s.118 / 139 NIA would arise only when the execution of the cheque or other negotiable instruments as the case may be, is either proved by the complainant or admitted by the accused.
In the present case, the accused has vehemently denied her signatures on the cheque in question. She also denied the issuance of the cheque in favor of the complainant and rather pleaded case of misuse of the cheque. Thereby, the burden to prove the said fact lies on the accused by virtue of section 103 IEA.
However, apart from the blunt denial of the above facts, the accused never came up with any evidence, oral or documentary, to prove that the signatures on the cheque in question does not belong to her. Further, she never stepped into the witness box to testify the fact that the cheque in question has not been signed by her. No specimen signatures have been provided by her till date.
The accused admitted the account number on the cheque in question to be belonging to her during her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, the very requirement of section 138 NIA that "
drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker"
has been fulfilled. And the burden lies on the accused to show that Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:06:58 +0530 the cheque in question was never issued in favor of the complainant. However, apart from mere averments, no explanation has been put forward throughout the trial as to how the cheque in question came into the possession of the complainant. The bringing of such evidence becomes all the more important when in initial statement recorded under section 251 Cr.P.C, the accused not only denied the issuance of the cheque in favor of the complainant, but also denied even the acquaintance with the complainant. And at later stages of trial, she denied to be in any transaction with the complainant. In such a situation, coupled with the fact that she was subjected to life threat at the instance of the complainant and Rahul, the evidence with respect to non-issuance of the cheque by her on any occasion possible is highly necessary for proving the defence of accused.
However, no iota of evidence has been brought on record by accused. Despite being repeatedly pleaded by the complainant that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant through Rakesh by accused, she never called Rakesh as witness to testify the fact of non-existence of any possibility of issuance of the cheque in favor of the complainant. The non-calling of such an essential witness cast shadows of doubt on the defence of accused especially when the signatures and the very issuance of the instrument/cheque in question has been denied. Further more, despite repeated statements of the complainant with respect to the issuance of the cheque by the accused as also noted in Ex. CW1/B Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:07:02 +0530 (whatsapp chats), no proof has been brought by accused ever to deny the same.
Thus, on basis of above, it can be observed that accused has failed to prove how the complainant got into the custody of the cheque in question. She has further failed to prove that the signatures on the cheque in question does not belong to her. However, the cheque in question is proved to be drawn on the account maintained by her. The cheque in question has been dishonored further with the remarks "Payment stopped by the drawer" and the accused was very well in receipt of the legal demand notice despite that accused never came forward with any complaint or any other piece of evidence to show that the cheque in question was never issued by her in favor of the complainant. In such a situation, the presumption under section 139 NIA lies in favor of the complainant.
14. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused to raise a probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recoverable debt arisen in favor of the complainant. As held in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC441,""... facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving contrary".
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:07:05 +0530 It is now to be examined as to whether the accused has brought any material on record dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
15. The accused has further pleaded the defence of having no dealing directly with the complainant ever and further to be having only the role of referral of the visa consultants. And has accordingly denied her liability towards the cheque in question.
16. For the purpose of reasoning and for enumerating whether the accused has succeeded in establishment of defence, the statements of accused given at different times are highly relevant.
During the statement framed under section 251 Cr.P.C, the accused stated-" I do not know the complainant and have never met him. I do not know how he came to be in possession of my cheque. I do not have any dealing with him whatsoever. My neighbor Mr. Rakesh is requested me to suggest a visa consultant as somebody known to him wanted Visa advisory. I referred Mr. Ravi and Ms. Shikha in Chandigarh and thereafter I did not have any role in the transaction, except once a payment was rooted through my account. There is no legal enforceable debt. My cheque has been misused."
Here in the said statement, the accused denied complete acquaintance with the complainant. Not only this, she even denied the acquaintance of the fact for which her neighbor Rakesh sought her suggestions with respect to Visa consultants. Further, she also Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.03.19 15:07:08 +0530 showed her ignorance with respect to the person for whom the payments were rooted from her account to the account of Ravi and Shikha in Chandigarh.
However, to complete surprise, in the statement given by the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, accused admitted acquaintance with complainant and rather pleaded to be having no direct dealing with the complainant. She stated -"
Shikha and Ravi came before me for job interview of HR but I did not keep them. They were engaged in the work of Visa and one of my uncle Rakesh referred about Sumit/ Complainant who was also engaged in the work of visa, which I further referred to Shikha and Ravi. I never directly met the complainant. For the said purpose and because of referral by me, the amount of Rs. 1.5 lac was transferred by complainant in my account during covid period to be further transferred to Shikha and Ravi. I was not engaged in any transaction with the complainant. My only role in the present transaction was of referral and for that purpose the amount was transferred by him in my account. Thereafter, complainant along with one of his relative Rahul and Shikha and Ravi met in Chandigarh and also set their business in this regard of visa service. I was not the part of the said meeting and I have no further information of the said meeting. Shikha and Ravi are husband and wife.
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:07:12 +0530 Shikha and Ravi absconded due to which I was also harassed by Rahul and complainant and also threatened. He used to call from fake nos. stating himself to be Sub Inspector. They were also involved in submissions of fake documents in covid vaccine.I was also informed by uncle Rakesh in between that the connection have been established which Shikha and Ravi and the matter has been soughted but despite that the present case has been filed against me while I have no knowledge.
When I was threatened of suicide / life by the complainant and Rahul, pursuant thereto I lodged online complaint at PS Bajghera, Gurgaon. Thereafter, I was called at the PS. I was also informed unofficially at PS that Shikha and Ravi are habitual offenders and multiple cases are pending against them and I was assured to get the matter settled by the police officials. Thereafter, I faced no further harassment. However, the present case was filed against me.
In the said statement, contradictions can be pointed out very well, where in the initial part of the statement, accused stated to have never met the complainant directly ever. While in the later part of the statement, she stated to be harassed by the complainant and Rahul to the extent of suicide/life. Not only this, she was also aware of the involvement of the complainant in the preparation of fake documents in a Covid vaccine. Another contradiction can be highlighted in both the statements of accused to the effect that Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:07:15 +0530 where in statement given by the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C, she stated her complete ignorance regarding the complainant. While in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, accused not only admitted to be knowing the complainant but also stated to be harassed by the complainant from fake numbers to the extent of suicide/life for which she also filed a complaint against the complainant and Rahul at PS Bajghera Gurgaon.
Thus, an express attempt to lead false statements can be seen on the part of accused.
17. Accused never brought any evidence on record to prove that she never had any dealing directly with the complainant. No evidence has been brought on record by the accused to prove that there was no transaction with the complainant ever. The bringing of such evidence is highly necessary in view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was admitted by the accused in her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C to be received from the complainant in her account for further transfer to Shikha and Ravi.
In one instance, the accused specifies her role merely as a "referral". She stated to have only suggested the names of the visa consultants for the purpose of assisting complainant to get visa services who approached her through neighbor Rakesh.
However, factum of transfer of Rs. 1.5 lacs in the account of accused from the account of complainant has not been clarified when she was only working as a referral and for suggesting the Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.03.19 15:07:18 +0530 name of the Visa consultants and was not engaged in any transaction whatsoever with the complainant. Moreover, accused pleaded that the amount was transferred by her to Shikha and Ravi onwards, here again, no evidence has been brought on record by accused to prove that the amount received from the complainant was further transferred to the said persons mentioned by her. Moreover, no evidence has been brought by accused to prove the reason as to why she was acting as a mediator for the transfer of the amount when she had no role in the present transaction apart from suggesting the name of the visa consultants.
The case of accused appears to be hollow. The accused has pleaded time and again that she only referred the name of the visa consultants Shikha and Ravi to neighbor Rakesh. If this was the case, then explanation ought to be given by the accused that when her role of referral was duly completed and closed, then why and for what purpose she acted as transferor for the amount received from the complainant to Shikha and Ravi, when she was herself not involved in any of the services of Visa. Moreover, explanation ought to be given by accused with respect to the fact that when Shikha and Ravi absconded, why was she harassed at the instance of the complainant and Rakesh when her only role was to refer the names of the Visa consultants and no further. The furnishing of the said explanations become all the more very important in view of the other fact that the accused was in receipt of legal demand notice and the payment for the cheque in question was stopped by Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:07:21 +0530 her, showing her very well awareness regarding the ongoing transactions between complainant and the said so called consultants Shikha and Ravi, who have never been called on record to testify with respect to the defence of accused.
The said situation is coupled with the fact that the neighbor Rakesh who is a key person in the entire transaction and the person who sought the referral from the accused on behalf of the complainant and also a person who brought the cheque in question from the accused to be handed over to the complainant in discharge of liability has never been called as witness to testify with respect to the defence of accused.
18. The complainant has based his case on documentary evidences viz. Ex. CW1/A which clearly shows the transfer of the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs by the complainant in the account of accused. The same is also admitted by the accused during her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Further, the complainant has relied upon the chats Ex. CW1/B between him and accused. While the accused has not come up with any denial with respect to the said chats, despite her defence being that of having no acquaintance with the complainant at all and that of having no dealing with the complainant at all. The only challenges sought on Ex. CW1/B with respect to the amount claimed by the complainant from the accused to the extent of Rs.
Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.03.19 15:07:24 +0530 50,000 and not Rs. 2 lacs. However, in consideration of the cross examination conducted, it can be made out that no effective challenge could be placed on the veracity of the document Ex. CW1/B. Hence, the document stands proved in favor of the complainant.
19. In consideration of the ingredients of section 138 NIA, it has been proved that the cheque was drawn from the account of accused maintained with the banker and the same was dishonored with the remarks "Payment stopped by the drawer" and the said subject is covered within provisions of section 138 NIA. Thereafter, Legal notice was issued within the validity period. And the receipt thereof has been duly admitted by accused. Further, the existence of legal enforceable debt has been proved by complainant by adducing documentary evidences and the present complaint was filed within limitation period. The amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs has been admitted to be received by the accused from the complainant. Further, she has failed to prove that the amount was further transferred to Ravi and Shikha. With respect to the amount of Rs. 50,000 alleged to be paid to accused in cash through Rakesh, no rebuttal has ever been placed. Rakesh never called in as witness to disprove the said fact. The accused has completely failed to prove the non-existence of any dealing between her and complainant. Accordingly, all the ingredients of section 138 NIA stands duly satisfied. The accused has miserably failed to rebut the Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.03.19 15:07:29 +0530 presumption arisen in favor of the complainant under section 139/118 NIA.
20. Hence, accused Ritu Rathi stands convicted for the offence under section 138 NIA.
21. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
22. Let copy of judgment be provided to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on 19.03.2026.
Note : This judgment contains 17 pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedSHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.03.19 15:07:33 +0530 (SHIVANGI MANGLA) JMFC (NI Act) -05, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19.03.2026 Ct. Case No 4220/2022 SUMIT Vs. RITU RATHI Page No. 17 of 17