Bangalore District Court
Sonu Marketing Pvt Ltd vs Chandra N on 19 November, 2025
KABC030358222025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 19th day of November 2025
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.20533/2025
Complainant : M/s Sonu Marketing Private Limited
No.30, 1st main, 2nd floor
Bannerghatta Main Road
Opp to Gopalan Innovation Mall
BHCS Layout, BTM Layout 2nd stage
Bengaluru 560 076.
Rep. By its Authorized Agent
Sri U Hari
(By AJ Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Chandra N
S/o.Nagaraju
No.15, Ground floor
8th Cross, Doddakammana Halli
Gottigere Post
Bannerghatta Road
Doddakammana Halli
Bangalore 560 083.
(Opp.to Amodha Valmark Apartment)
Also at
Sri Chandra N
S/o Nagaraj
No.31A, MV Palya
Mathikere, Magadi Taluk
2
C.C.No.20533/2025
Ramnagar 562 120.
(Near Aralimara )
(By TSG - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is convicted
Date of judgment : 19.11.2025
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under Section 223 Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is a Non Banking Financial Institution. It is stated that the accused and Co-applicant Aishwarya.S. approached the complainant for financial facility and on their application the complainant has sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.05.2024 vide loan account No.100110500100164. That while availing the loan, the accused and the co-applicant agreed to repay the same in 24 EMIs of Rs.23,333/- . The accused have executed necessary documents and also agreed to pay varied rate of interest and other incidental charges to the complainant. That inspite of many 3 C.C.No.20533/2025 reminders, neither the accused nor the co-applicant replied nor there was any regular payments towards the EMIs. That as on 23.12.2024 the loan account was showing balance of Rs.5,43,334/-. That on regular follow up, towards repayment of out standing amount the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000033 dated 23.12.2024 for a sum of Rs.5,43,334/- drawn on M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank. BTM Lay out branch. The complainant has presented said cheque through his banker i.e. ICICI Bank, BTM 2nd stage, Bengaluru and said cheque returned dishonored on 26-12-2024 for the reason "Funds Insufficient".
Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 24.01.2025 calling upon the accused to pay the amount involved in the cheque. The notice sent to the first address was duly served on 01.02.2025 and the notice sent to the second address returned on 03.02.2025 with an endorsement "Addressee cant be located hence returned to sender". Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant, this court has taken cognizance of offence and 4 C.C.No.20533/2025 registered the case in PCR No.4521/2025 and recorded sworn statement of the representative of complainant as PW 1 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.12. This court by considering the material on record issued process under Section 227 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita by registering the criminal case. In response to the process issued by this court, the accused appeared before this court and he is released on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along with the summons as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita.
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided Section 274 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita is read over to the accused and his plea is recorded. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in AIR 2014SCW3463, the affidavit filed by the complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As the evidence is on record the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the complainant is read over to the accused and his statement under Section 351 of Bharathiya 5 C.C.No.20533/2025 Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha is read over to the accused and the accused has denied the same as false. On the application of the accused, the PW 1 is recalled for cross examination and he is subjected to cross examination in part. Later, the complainant and accused appeared before this court and have filed joint memo stating that they have arrived at amicable settlement in respect of payment of due amount by the accused and requested to pass judgment and consider the joint memo for awarding fine and compensation. In view of the settlement, the accused has submitted that there is no cross examination of PW 1 and there is no defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record.
7. On the basis of the material on record the following points arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000033 dated 23.12.2024 for Rs.5,43,334/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Bangalore towards discharge of legal liability and same is dishonored on 26.12.2024 for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and inspite of service 6 C.C.No.20533/2025 of legal notice dated 24-01-2025 on 01.02.2025,the accused has not complied the same within statutory time and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. Whether the joint memo filed by both the complainant and the accused can be considered for imposing fine and awarding compensation ?
3. What Order?
8. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1&2 In the Affirmative.
Point No.3 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorised representative of the complainant examined as PW-1 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant is a company registered under Companies Act and also obtained licence to provide credit facility as Non Banking Financial Company. To prove the incorporation of the company the PW 1 has produced the notarised copy of the Certificate of Incorporation as Ex.P 1. The PW 1 has produced the notarised copy of the GPA as Ex.P 2. As per Ex.P 2 the 7 C.C.No.20533/2025 PW1 is authorized to represent the complainant company and prosecute the accused. All these documents prove the legal status of the complainant as a Company and authority of PW 1 to represent the complainant company.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused and on request of one Aishwarya.S. as Co-applicant approached the complainant and the complainant sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.05.2024 vide loan account No.100110500100164. That while availing the loan, the accused and the co-applicant agreed to repay the same in 24 EMIs of Rs.23,333/- by executing necessary documents and also agreed to pay varied rate of interest and other incidental charges to the complainant. It is stated that as on 23.12.2024 the loan account was showing balance of Rs.5,43,334/- and on regular follow up, towards repayment of out standing amount the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000033 dated 23.12.2024 for a sum of Rs.5,43,334/- drawn on M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank. The said cheque is marked as Ex.P3. He has deposed that they have presented said cheque for collection through their banker ie ICICI Bank, BTM Layout, Bangalore and said cheque returned dishonored on 26.12.2024 for the reason "Funds Insufficient"
in the account of the accused. The PW 1 has produced said memo of dishonour as Ex.P4. The PW1 has deposed that they 8 C.C.No.20533/2025 have got issued legal notice dated dated 24.01.2025 calling upon the accused to pay the amount involved in the cheque. The notice sent to the first address was duly served on 01.02.2025 and the notice sent to the second address returned on 03.02.2025 with an endorsement "Addressee cant be located hence returned to sender". Evidencing the service of notice, PW 1 has produced the postal receipts, postal acknowledgment and postal envelope as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9. It is stated that the accused has not issued any reply or nor complied the demands in the notice and thus committed the offence.
11. Now it is proper to consider whether the complainant has complied statutory requirements for constitution of offence. The essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the cheque by the accused ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank with in the period of three months, iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque amount with in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer to make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the demand notice and v) Presentation of the complaint within a 9 C.C.No.20533/2025 month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of notice to the accused.
12. The cheque is dated 23.12.2024. It is dishonored on 26.12.2024 for the reason "Funds Insufficient". The demand notice is issued to the accused on 24-01-2025 and it is served on the accused on 03-02-2025. As provided under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The PW 1 has deposed that inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time of 15 days of service of notice. Hence cause of action arose for prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act on 18-02-2025. The complaint is filed before this court on 18.03.2025, within 30 days of cause of action. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:- 10
C.C.No.20533/2025 139- Presumption in favour of holder - It should 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.
13. Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that -
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It is also observed that Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant caused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or proof.
14. Therefore in view of the principles laid down in these decisions the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption under 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has not issued any reply at the initial stage at the time of service of the legal notice. The accused has partly cross examined PW 1 and 11 C.C.No.20533/2025 when the matter was posted for further cross of PW 1, the accused came up with mutual understanding with the complainant to settle the dispute and payment of due amount in terms of memo of settlement. In the cross examination the accused has not taken any specific defence and not denied availment of the loan. The accused has also not denied his liability and not denied issuance of chque in discharge of liability. Therefore there is no defence from the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Even though the complainant is backed with the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act the complainant has produced the loan application and the loan sanction letter as per Ex.P.10 & ExP.11 and Loan agreement as Ex.P.12 substantiating the transactions. As discussed above all the statutory requirements are complied. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court concludes that the complainant has successfully proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative. 12
C.C.No.20533/2025
15. POINT NO. 2 : The complainant and the accused appeared before the court reporting amicable arrangement made by them to payment of due amount by the accused to the complainant and filed joint memo. Under the joint memo, they have reported that the matter has been settled and entered into settlement for payment of Rs.3,60,000/- towards full and final settlement. The accused agreed to pay said amount in 13 installments as per the joint memo as under :
1st installment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 18.12.2025 2ndinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.01.2026 3rd installment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.02.2026 4thinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.03.2026 5thinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.04.2026 6thinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.05.2026 7thinstallment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.06.2026 8thinstallment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.07.2026 9thinstallment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.08.2026 10th installment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.09.2026 11th installment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.10.2026 12th installment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.11.2026 13 C.C.No.20533/2025 13th installment for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 10.12.2026 .
It appears that the accused and complainant have voluntarily agreed for said settlement and settlement is not opposed to public polity.
16. Now it is proper to consider whether this arrangement made by the accused and the complainant can be considered while awarding fine and granting compensation. In this regard it is proper to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court reported in (2004)2SCC 235 between Goa Plastic (P) Ltd Vs Chico Ursula D'souza, in this case it is held that -
"26. The object and the ingredients under the provisions, in particular, sections 138 and 139 of the Act cannot be ignored. Proper and smooth functioning of all business transactions, particularly of cheques as instruments, primarily depends upon the integrity and honesty of the parties. In our country, in large number of commercial transactions, it was noted that the cheqeus were issued even merely as a device not only stall but even defraud the creditors, The sanity and credibility of issuance of cheques in commercial transactions was eroded to a large extent. Undoubtedly, dishonour of the cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and the entire credibility of the business transactions within and outside the country suffers a 14 C.C.No.20533/2025 serious set back. Parliament, in order to restore the credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment enacted the aforesaid provisions. The remedy available in a civil court is a long drawn matter and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee.".
As provided under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act the offences under the Act are compoundable. To compound the offence the accused should pay entire due amount under the cheque to the complainant to his satisfaction. If accused has only agreed to settle the due amount in a future day, as in this case, it cannot be compounded. If compounded and later the accused defaults to the terms of compromise, it will cause hardship to the complainant to recover the amount. Therefore, considering the intention of the parliament as elaborated in the above referred decision, to facilitate the mutual arrangement made by the parties, this court thinks it proper to consider the joint memo filed by the parties for awarding sentence and granting compensation. Therefore this court answers the Point No. 2 in the Affirmative.
17. Point No.3 : In view of the findings on above point Nos.1 and 2, the court proceeds to pass the following : 15
C.C.No.20533/2025 ORDER By exercising powers conferred under Section 278(2) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only).
The accused shall pay the fine amount in 13 installments as under :
1st installment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 18.12.2025 2ndinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.01.2026 3rd installment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.02.2026 4thinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.03.2026 5thinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.04.2026 6thinstallment for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 10.05.2026 7thinstallment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.06.2026 8thinstallment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.07.2026 9thinstallment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.08.2026 10th installment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.09.2026 11th installment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.10.2026 12th installment for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on or before 10.11.2026 16 C.C.No.20533/2025 13th installment for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 10.12.2026.
In default to pay the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months.
Further by exercising powers conferred under Section 395(1)(b) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only), entire fine amount on recovery, shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of November 2025).
(GOKULA.K) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : U.Hari LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Notarized copy of Incorporation Certificate Ex.P2 : Notarised copy of GPA Ex.P3 : Cheque 17 C.C.No.20533/2025 Ex.P4 &5 : Bank Endorsements Ex.P6 : Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P7 : Postal receipts Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P9 : Postal envelope Ex.P10 : Loan Application Ex.P11 : Loan Sanction letter Ex.P12 : Loan agreement LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:- Digitally signed by Nil GOKULA K GOKULA Date:
K 2025.11.20
17:52:50
+0530
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
18
C.C.No.20533/2025