Delhi District Court
Raman Dass vs Shiv Raj Solanki on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MR. ARVIND TOMAR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT)-07
CENTRAL DISTRICT, NCT of DELHI
DLCT020200272016
Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016
Sh. Raman Dass,
S/o Late Sh. D.N. Dass
R/o H.No. 7033, Gali no. 8,
Mata Rameshwari Nehru Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. ...... Complainant
Versus
Sh. Shiv Raj Solanki,
Sh. Shankar Raj Solanki,
R/o H.No. 16/1530-E,
Bapa Nagar. Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
Also At M/s Hotel Sehej Continental,
53/1, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. ...... Accused
Offence complained of U/s 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case instituted on 22.10.2016
Plea of accused Not guilty
Final order Conviction
Date of decision of the case 05.02.2026
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This judgment disposes of the case registered on the complaint filed by Sh. Raman Dass (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") against Sh. Shiv Raj Solanki (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") alleging commission of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act").Digitally signed by ARVIND
ARVIND TOMAR Date: TOMAR 2026.02.05 Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 14:54:01 +0530 Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 1/11 FACTS OF THE CASE
2. According to the complaint, the complainant and the accused were known to each other for several years and were partners in a hotel business being run in the name and style of Hotel Sehej Continental at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. A registered partnership deed was executed between the parties, under which the accused was entitled to a 45% share, the complainant to a 35% share, and a third partner, namely Narender Singh, to a 20% share. Subsequently, the accused expressed unwillingness to continue the partnership with the complainant and took over complete control of the business. In terms of a subsequent understanding/Memorandum of Understanding, the complainant agreed not to interfere in the affairs of the hotel, while the accused assumed full responsibility for running the business, maintaining accounts, and managing day-to-day operations. In accordance with Clause 18 of the partnership deed, which permitted transfer of a partner's share to an existing partner, the complainant assigned his entire share in favour of the accused and made it clear that he would not be responsible for any act or liability of the firm thereafter. It was mutually agreed that the complainant's share in the business would stand at 40% and that his investment and profits were to be settled by the accused.
2.2 It is the case of the complainant that for the period from 01.03.2015 to 30.04.2016, a sum of Rs.9,76,512/- became due and payable to him towards his share, which the accused failed to clear despite repeated requests. All accounts of the hotel business were exclusively maintained and controlled by the accused. Eventually, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which the accused issued three cheques in favour of the complainant towards partial discharge of the outstanding liability (i) Cheque No. 000049 dated 01.09.2016 for Rs.85,000/-, (ii) Cheque No. 000100 dated 01.09.2016 for Rs.85,000/-, and (iii) Cheque No. 000101 dated 14.09.2016 Digitally signed by ARVIND ARVIND TOMAR Date: Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 TOMAR 2026.02.05 14:54:12 Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki +0530 2/11 for Rs.1,00,000/-, all drawn on HDFC Bank, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Branch, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, aggregating to Rs.2,70,000/-. However, upon presentation, the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured with the remark "Payment Stopped." Believing he was deceived, the complainant got a statutory demand notice served upon the accused, but despite service of the legal notice, the accused denied his liability to pay\the cheque amount, through his reply. Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint.
3. On these allegations, a prima facie case was established and after conducting pre-summoning inquiry, the accused was summoned. On 01.05.2018, the substance of accusation was stated to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his plea of defence, the accused admitted his signature in the cheque in question. He admitted receiving the legal notice and his reply on record. He stated that the complainant himself expressed unwillingness to continue in the partnership, pursuant to which a settlement deed was prepared in the presence of the hotel owner, Mr. Sunny Asri; however, the complainant allegedly refused to sign the settlement deed and took away the cheques in question. As the settlement was not executed, the hotel owner, who operated the bank account on behalf of the accused, instructed stoppage of payment. It is further the defence that both parties had instituted cases against each other, which were later settled on 22.03.2017, when the complainant allegedly demanded Rs.9,75,000/-, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid in cash as Bayana against a written receipt, with an agreement to withdraw all pending cases. The accused claims that the remaining amount of Rs.7,75,000/- was paid in April 2017 through a pay order and that copies of withdrawal orders of cases were exchanged; however, despite the alleged full settlement, the complainant misused the cheques in question and failed to withdraw the present complaint, which came to the accused's knowledge only upon visit of police officials at his residence.
Digitally signed by ARVIND Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 ARVIND TOMAR Date: Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki TOMAR 2026.02.05 14:54:17 3/11 +0530 COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
4. The complainant examined himself as CW-1. He adopted his pre-summoning evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), in lieu of his examination-in-chief and relied upon the following documents: Cheques in question (Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/3); Original returning memo (Ex.CW-1/4) to (Ex.CW1/6); Legal notice dated 28.09.2016 (Ex.CW-1/7); Courier receipts (Ex.CW-1/8); Reply dated 03.10.2016 to the notice (Ex.CW1/9); Copy of Partnership deed (Ex.CW1/10); Copy of Lease deed (Ex.CW1/11); Statement (Ex.CW1/12); Statement of Deed/MOU (Ex.CW1/13). He was then cross-examined and confronted with Certified copy of suit withdrawn (Ex.CW-1/D); Dissolution Deed & NOC dated 14.04.2017 (Ex.CW-1/D1(colly)) and Settlement Statement (Ex.CW-1/D2). CE closed on 04.09.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. Thereafter, the evidence led by the complainant was put to the accused and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.04.2025, wherein admitted that he had signed the cheques and filled in all particulars except the name of the payee, and that the cheques were drawn on the account of Sehaj International, of which he was an authorised signatory. He admitted the genuineness of documents Ex. CW-1/10 and Ex. CW-1/11 and acknowledged being a party thereto. He further stated that he, the complainant, and Narender Singh were partners in Hotel Sehaj Continental with shares of 45%, 35%, and 20% respectively, and that disputes arose when the complainant sought an increased share or exit from the partnership. According to him, a settlement was reached under which he agreed to pay Rs.2,70,000/- by cheque in consideration of the complainant relinquishing his share, but the complainant allegedly took the cheques without executing the deed, leading him to stop payment. He further stated that in 2017 a subsequent settlement was arrived at and he paid Rs.9,75,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/-
Digitally signedCt. Cases.: 541295/2016 by ARVIND
Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki ARVIND
TOMAR
Date: 4/11
TOMAR 2026.02.05
14:54:23
+0530
in cash and Rs.7,75,000/- by pay order), pursuant to which all cases were to be withdrawn; however, the complainant withdrew only the civil suit and continued the present NI Act proceedings.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. The accused opted to lead DE. However, on the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused, the right of the accused to lead DE was closed on 04.10.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. For final arguments, the complainant filed written submissions contending that all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act stand proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions operating against him. It was argued that the accused neither led any defence evidence nor examined any witness, despite the complainant having duly proved documents Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/11 during cross-examination on 05.04.2022, 30.09.2022 & 28.06.2023, and having specifically denied the alleged receipt Ex. CW-1/D-2, which also remained unproved. It was further submitted that although the complainant withdrew the civil suit in terms of the settlement Ex. CW-1/13, the accused failed to pay the agreed sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, resulting in non-withdrawal of the present complaint. Despite directions of the Court, the accused failed to produce the original settlement deed, which, as stated by the complainant, remains in the possession of the accused. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the complainant has been diligently contesting the present proceedings since 2016. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, the accused filed written submissions setting out a chronological narrative and argued that the complainant failed to establish the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act. It was submitted that the parties were partners Digitally signed Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 by ARVIND Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki ARVIND TOMAR Date: 5/11 TOMAR 2026.02.05 14:54:29 +0530 in Hotel Sehaj Continental in agreed profit-sharing ratios, and that disputes arose due to the complainant's alleged excess withdrawal, leading to an amicable settlement for his exit upon payment of Rs.2,70,000/-. The accused asserted that three undated cheques were issued subject to execution of a dissolution deed and NOC, but were allegedly taken and prematurely presented by the complainant, necessitating stop-payment instructions. It was further argued that all disputes were finally settled by compromises dated 22.03.2017 and 14.04.2017, pursuant to which the accused paid Rs.9,75,000/- and the complainant withdrew the civil suit but not the present case. On this basis, it was contended that no legally enforceable debt subsists and that continuation of the present complaint amounts to misuse of process, warranting dismissal and acquittal.
RELEVANT LAW & ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
9. S. 138 of the NI act reads as follows, "Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
(b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer, of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid, and
(c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability"
means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.Digitally signed by ARVIND
ARVIND TOMAR
Date:
Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 TOMAR 2026.02.05
Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 14:54:34 6/11
+0530
10. In the instant case, accused's signature on the cheques (Ex.CW1/1
to Ex.CW1/3), their presentation within the maturity/validity period by the complainant, their dishonour for "Payment stopped by drawer" by way of return memos (Ex.CW1/4 to Ex.CW1/6), service of legal notice (Ex.CW-1/7) and non-payment of cheque amount within the statutory timeline, are not disputed between the parties. The dispute remains only as to whether or not the accused issued the cheque in question to discharge a legally enforceable debt or a liability towards the complainant.
11. In his statements recorded u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and s. 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, through its judgments in cases titled Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418; Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75, has held that presumptions u/s 118(a) & s.139 of NI act, have to be compulsorily raised, as soon as execution of cheque is admitted by the accused or proved by the complainant. As the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque in question, it is presumed that he issued the cheque for consideration and in discharge of his legally enforceable debt or liability towards the complainant.
12. The law and legal precedents establish that it is the accused's responsibility to rebut the aforesaid presumption against him. To rebut the same, he does not need to prove his defense beyond a reasonable doubt but only needs to create reasonable doubt in the complainant's case by highlighting inconsistencies therein or by presenting a plausible alternate story that makes the complainant's version improbable.
13. To rebut the presumption against him, the accused has challenged the complainant's account and provided an alternative version. His defence, as emerging from his plea, statement u/s 313 CrPC and final submissions, is that Digitally signed by ARVIND ARVIND TOMAR Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 TOMAR Date:
Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 2026.02.05 14:54:39 7/11 +0530 the complainant himself sought to exit the partnership business of Hotel Sehej Continental after demanding an increased share, whereupon a settlement was arrived at, to sever his association with the firm. According to the accused, the three cheques in question were issued only pursuant to such settlement and were conditional upon the complainant executing a deed of dissolution and necessary NOC, which he allegedly failed to do, instead took the cheques without authority and presented them prematurely, compelling the accused to issue stop-payment instructions. It is further the defence that subsequent disputes between the parties culminated in comprehensive settlements dated 22.03.2017 and 14.04.2017, pursuant to which the accused paid a total sum of Rs.9,75,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and Rs.7,75,000/- by pay order), dissolution documents were executed, and the complainant withdrew the civil suit. On this basis, the accused asserts that no legally enforceable debt or liability subsisted on the date of presentation of the cheques and that the continuation of the present complaint despite alleged full settlement amounts to misuse of the process of law.
14. The principal defence of the accused is that the cheques were conditional in nature, issued only as part of a proposed settlement, subject to the complainant first executing a deed of dissolution and NOC, and that the complainant allegedly took the cheques without fulfilling these conditions.
The executed Dissolution Deed and NOC (Ex.CW-1/D1) were brought on record by the accused himself. However, this defence remains unsupported by cogent evidence. No written document has been produced to demonstrate that the cheques were handed over in escrow or subject to aforesaid express condition precedent. Notably, the accused did not examine the hotel owner, the manager, or any other independent witness to substantiate the plea that the cheques were unauthorisedly taken or that their presentation was contractually barred. Digitally signed by ARVIND ARVIND TOMAR Date:
TOMAR 2026.02.05
14:54:43
+0530
Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016
Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 8/11
15. The accused's further defense is that he entered into a settlement
with the complainant after which he paid the amount due to the complainant. The accused has heavily relied upon the handwritten settlement dated 22.03.2017 (Ex. CW-1/D-2) whereby it is alleged that the complainant agreed to settle the entire matter upon receipt of a sum of Rs.9,75,000/-. However, the complainant has expressly denied executing the said document during his cross-examination, a fact expressly admitted/not disputed by the accused. An unsigned settlement document, by itself, cannot be treated as proof of a concluded contract or binding compromise. Significantly, the accused also did not examine any of the alleged witnesses to Ex. CW-1/D-2 to prove its execution or acceptance by the complainant. Moreover, whereas the complainant admits receipt of Rs. 7,75,000/-, he has not admitted receipt of remaining Rs.2,00,000/-. The said payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- also remains unproved by the accused. Over and above that, the said averments of the accused only show that the accused failed to discharge the cheque liability within the statutory period, despite subsequently asserting a settlement. Consequently, Ex. CW-1/D-2 does not advance the defence case in any meaningful manner.
16. The subsequent Settlement Deed/MOU dated 14.04.2017 (Ex. CW-1/13) stands admitted by both parties. The complainant has candidly admitted that pursuant thereto, he received Rs.7,75,000/- through pay order and withdrew the civil suit. However, the said document does not, by itself, extinguish criminal liability u/s 138 NI Act. It is well settled that criminal liability u/s 138 of the act crystallises upon dishonour of the cheque and cannot be extinguished without being specifically compounded before the court. In the present case, neither was the offence compounded before this Court nor was it demonstrated that the cheque amount stood discharged prior to or contemporaneously with its presentation. The mere recital in the MOU Digitally signed by ARVIND ARVIND TOMAR Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 TOMAR Date:
2026.02.05 Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 14:54:49 +0530 9/11 expressing an intention to withdraw criminal cases, in the absence of an express compounding, cancellation of cheques, or withdrawal of the present complaint, cannot operate as an automatic bar to continuation of proceedings.
17. Further, the defence that the complainant had already withdrawn amounts in excess of his share from the partnership accounts is entirely unsubstantiated. No ledger, account statement, balance sheet, or testimony of the accountant has been brought on record by the accused. In fact, the accused admittedly maintained exclusive control over the accounts of the business. In such circumstances, an adverse inference u/s 114(g) of the Evidence Act is liable to be drawn against the accused for withholding the best evidence.
18. Equally important is the fact that the accused, despite opting to lead defence evidence, did not examine himself or any other witness, and his right to lead defence evidence was closed at his own instance. His defence, therefore, rests solely on suggestions put in cross-examination and on his statement u/s 313 CrPC, which, by settled law, cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Mere explanations or assertions, unsupported by proof, do not meet even the lower threshold of preponderance of probabilities. At the same time, the complainant has also consistently denied execution of Ex. CW-1/D-2, denied any condition precedent attached to the cheques, and asserted subsisting liability. These denials stand unshaken in the cross examination.
19. Lastly, the complainant's inability to produce documentary proof of a 40% partnership share is immaterial to the offence u/s 138, particularly when the accused himself admits issuance of the cheques pursuant to a settlement, thereby acknowledging liability.
Digitally signed by ARVIND ARVIND TOMAR
Date:
TOMAR 2026.02.05
14:54:54
Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 +0530
Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 10/11
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, it is evident that
the accused has neither led cogent evidence to support his alternative version nor has he been able to dismantle the version of the complainant. Thus, the accused has not been able to create a probable defence that would render the complainant's version doubtful or tilt the balance of probabilities in his favour. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, therefore, remain unrebutted. Accordingly, the accused Shiv Raj Solanki is held guilty and convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act. Digitally signed by ARVIND ARVIND TOMAR TOMAR Date:
2026.02.05 14:55:01 +0530 Announced in the open court on ARVIND TOMAR 05th day of February, 2026 JMFC(NIAct)-07 (The judgment consists of 11 pages) Central District, Delhi Ct. Cases.: 541295/2016 Raman Dass Vs. Shiv Raj Solanki 11/11