Delhi District Court
Harender Singh vs Ravinder Singh on 12 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT-03
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
1. Complainant case number 4985/2022
2. Name of the complainant Sh. Harender Singh
S/o Late Sh. Nyader Singh
R/o A-307, Street No.33
Chattarpur Enclave, Phase- II
New Delhi-110074
3. Name, Parentage and address Sh. Ravinder Singh
of the accused person S/o Sh. VijayPal
R/o H.No. B-271, Gali No.4
Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar
Delhi-110094
4. Offence complained of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final order Accused is convicted
7. Date of institution 04.06.2022
8. Date of reserving the judgment 31.07.2025
9. Date of pronouncement 12.08.2025
ANSHUL
AGNIHOTRI
Digitally signed
CC NI Act 4985/2022 by ANSHUL
AGNIHOTRI
Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 1 of 13 Date: 2025.08.12
15:37:34 +0530
-:JUDGEMENT:-
1. The present complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') has been filed by Sh. Harender Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') against Sh. Ravinder Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the complaint is that the accused have friendly relations with the complainant since long as they were in Delhi Police service. In June 2021, accused approached complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- as he was in urgent need of finances for his legal expenses in his suspension case. On the basis of assurance from the accused, complainant withdraw a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from his bank account dated 19.06.2022 and arranged sum of Rs. 50,000/- from his savings in hand. Afterwards, complainant lent an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash to the accused and accused assured repayment to the complainant within six months. Finally, in order to discharge his liability, accused issued two cheques i.e. one cheque bearing number 291830 dated 01.04.2022 for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 and another cheque bearing number 474499 dated 01.04.2022 for sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.
3. Upon presentation of the aforesaid cheques (hereinafter referred to as the 'cheques in question'), same got dishonoured vide return memos dated 16.04.2022 with the remarks "Funds insufficient". Thereafter, a legal demand notice dated 28.04.2022 was duly sent to accused by the complainant at its available address. The demand CC NI Act 4985/2022 Digitally signed by Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 2 of 13 ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12 15:37:40 +0530 notice was duly served to the accused. The accused failed to pay the amount qua cheque in question within the statutory period. Hence, the present complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed against the accused.
4. Upon issuance of summons, accused entered his appearance in the present matter for the first time on 09.09.2022 and was admitted to bail. Further, it was ensured that copy of complaint with relevant documents has been supplied to the accused. Thereafter, notice u/s 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') was served upon the accused on 17.04.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PLEA OF DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
5. In his plea of defence, accused admitted his signatures on cheques in question. He had borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant in 2018, in presence of his friend Shreepal, and had given a blank signed cheque at that time. In 2019, after taking an additional loan of Rs.50,000/-, he retrieved the earlier issued cheque and issued a fresh undated cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. In January 2021, he issued a second cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- after the complainant gave him Rs.48,000/-on account of his late friend Ashwani Luthra's son marriage. He asserts that he has paid Rs.72,000/- to the complainant in the presence of Deepak Luthra. He has been making regular payments to the complainant through his bank account and claims to have paid approximately Rs.4,75,000/- in total. Some payments were made from a Grahak Sewa Kendra, and he possesses partial receipts of such payments, having lost others in an accident. Accused further asserts that he no longer owes any liability towards the complainant and admitted receiving of legal notice from the complainant.
CC NI Act 4985/2022 Digitally
signed by
Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 3 of 13 ANSHUL
ANSHUL
AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12
15:37:44
+0530
Thereafter, accused was granted an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant u/s 145(2) NI Act and matter was fixed for complainant's evidence.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to support its case, complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and tendered evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.CW1/1 wherein averments made in the complaint were reiterated. Further complainant has also examined a bank witness as CW-2. He also relied upon various documents such as:-
S. Particulars Exhibits
No.
1 Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.CW-1/A
2 Cheque bearing number 291830 for an amount Ex.CW-1/B
of Rs.1,00,000/-
3 Cheque bearing number 474499 for an amount Ex.CW-1/C
of Rs.2,50,000/-
4 Return Memo qua cheque bearing number Ex.CW1/D
291830 of Rs.1,00,000/-
5 Return Memo qua cheque bearing number Ex.CW1/E
474499 of Rs.2,50,000
6 Legal Notice dated 28.04.2022 Ex.CW-1/F
7 Postal Receipts Ex.CW-1/G(colly)
8 Tracking Reports Ex. CW-1/H (colly)
9 Bank statement of the complainant Ex. CW-2/A
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
7. The statement of accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. on 10.11.2023. All the incriminating evidences were put to accused. In his statement, accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. The accused, Ravinder Singh, admitted to issuing the two cheques in Digitally signed by ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI CC NI Act 4985/2022 AGNIHOTRI Date:
Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 4 of 13 2025.08.12 15:37:55 +0530 question but denied any outstanding legal liability towards the complainant. He stated that he had taken friendly loans for total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant between 2018 and 2019 and had issued a blank signed cheque in 2019, filled in the complainant's presence. Another cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was issued in January 2021 for a loan of Rs.48,000/- taken on behalf of third party, Deepak Luthra. Accused stated that, in November 2021, he has repaid Rs.72,000/- to the complainant by way of cash in the presence of Deepak Luthra.The accused further claimed to have repaid the entire liability by regularly transferring monthly amounts ranging from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs.12,000/-, along with lump-sum payments, totalling approximately Rs. 4,60,000/-. Therefore, accused stated that there is no outstanding liability towards the complainant in the present case and opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused had examined himself as a witness in the present case. In addition to this, accused examined two more witnesses i.e. Deepak Luthra DW-2 and Shri Pal as DW-3 in the present case. At request of Ld. Counsel for accused, vide order dated 26.03.2025, defence evidence was closed.
9. Final arguments advanced by both the parties. I have perused the case file, documents placed on record by both the parties and duly considered the submission made by Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT
10. The factual position being thus, now let us quickly run through the legal benchmark which is to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act :- ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI CC NI Act 4985/2022 Digitally signed by Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 5 of 13 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Date: 2025.08.12 15:38:10 +0530
(i) Person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iv) That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the 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 the bank;
(v) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI CC NI Act 4985/2022 Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 6 of 13 Digitally signed by ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Date: 2025.08.12 15:38:15 +0530 With Respect to first, third and fourth ingredients:-
12. It is pertinent from the averments and evidence adduced by the parties there is no dispute regarding first, third and fourth ingredients. The complainant has proved the original cheques in question vide Ex.CW-1/B and Ex. CW-1/C that the accused had not disputed as being drawn on his account and admitted his signatures. It is not disputed that the cheques in question were presented within period of validity. The cheques in question were returned unpaid vide return memos Ex.CW-1/D and Ex.CW-1/E with remarks "funds insufficient". The said reason is duly covered within the scheme of NI Act. Therefore, requirement of first, third and fourth ingredients stand fulfilled in the present matter.
With Respect to fifth and sixth ingredients:-
13. As far as proof of fifth and sixth ingredients are concerned, during framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that he has received the legal demand notice Ex.CW-1/F from the complainant. Furthermore, it is also clear from the record that accused has failed to make payment within 15 days from the receipt of notice. Therefore, the requirement of fifth and sixth ingredients also stand fulfilled.
With Respect to second ingredient:-
14. The core question in the present case is that whether the cheques in question have been issued by the accused in discharge of a legal liability or not ?
15. For that, let us again briefly recapitulate that accused admitted that cheques in question Ex.CW-1/B and Ex.CW-1/C bear his signatures. Now, by virtue of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act, a presumption arises in favour of complainant that the cheques in question were issued by accused to discharge a legally enforceable Digitally signed by CC NI Act 4985/2022 ANSHUL ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 7 of 13 AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12 15:38:20 +0530 liability. In the recent judgment, M/s Kalamani Tex & Anr. v. P. Balasubramaniyan,1 three Judges 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."
Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa2.
16. As per the scheme of the NI Act, on proof of foundational facts - a presumption arises as to the cheque having been issued in discharge of a legal liability, and the burden of proof lies upon the accused to rebut the said presumption. It is now fairly well settled that the accused can displace this presumption on a scale of preponderance of probabilities. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rangappa v. Sri Mohan,3 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence."
17. The accused can either prove that the liability did not exist or make the non existence of liability so probable that a reasonable person ought under the circumstances of the case - act on the supposition that it does not exist. Simply put, the accused has to make out a fairly plausible hypothesis. This the accused can do so either by leading defence evidence or even by punching holes within the case of the 1 (2021) 1 SCR 668 2 (2019) 5 SCC 418 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI 3 (2010) 11 SCC 441 Digitally signed CC NI Act 4985/2022 by ANSHUL Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 8 of 13 AGNIHOTRI Date: 2025.08.12 15:38:23 +0530 complainant in the testing ordeal of cross examination. In the present case, accused has extensively cross-examined the complainant and led defence evidence also.
18. It is the case of complainant that accused, being known to him since long as they were in Delhi Police Service and relatives, approached complainant for a friendly loan and in order to discharge his liability, cheques in question were issued by the accused in favour of complainant. Accused had tried to dispute his liability, during plea of defence u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., stating that he has already repaid the loan back to the complainant and there is no subsisting liability towards the complainant. It is pertinent to note that there are material contradictions during framing of notice and statement of accused that creates the doubt on the credibility of the defence taken by the accused. During framing of notice, accused stated that he has taken a further loan of Rs.50,000/- (in addition to earlier loan of Rs.1,50,000/-) once but during statement of accused it was averred that further loan of Rs.50,000/- was taken twice and subsequently fresh cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- issued in favour of the complainant. Further, it is inconceivable to believe that in lieu of loan of Rs.48,000/- taken by the accused on the account of late friend's son marriage, a prudent person would issue a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. Accused has provided no substantial reasons for drawing the cheque in excess of actual loan amount taken from the complainant. Further, accused has stated that he has started paying monthly instalments Rs.6000/-to Rs.8,000/- to the complainant by way of bank account and e-grahak sewa money transfers but failed to place on record any proof regarding the same. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had been paying monthly instalments to the complainant Digitally CC NI Act 4985/2022 signed by ANSHUL Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 9 of 13 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12 15:38:28 +0530 since 2018 after taking a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, there is no explanation provided by the accused for issuing a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- in 2019, allegedly after taking an additional loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. A prudent individual would not ordinarily issue a cheque for an amount exceeding the subsisting liability, particularly when the outstanding debt has been diminishing through regular monthly instalments paid to the complainant by the accused. Under Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 it is enunciated that the person who asserts a fact must prove the same unless the law otherwise provides. The accused has failed to prove or bring on record any cogent evidences to discredit the version of complainant. Therefore, the story of accused, in the absence of any cogent evidence, cannot be taken as a gospel truth, specifically, when the accused has admitted taking the alleged loan from the complainant.
19. There are several contradictions in the testimony of DW-2 namely Deepak Luthra wherein, during chief examination dated 12.03.2024, he stated that he had taken the loan from the complainant in the presence of the accused whereas on the other instance, during cross examination dated 01.02.2025, he stated that on 20th January 2021, he had taken loan directly from the accused. Further, it is pertinent to note that during his cross examination dated 01.02.2025, it was stated that money was given in cash to the complainant in his presence by the accused and further he retracted from his testimony and stated that "The accused never gave any money in front of me to the complainant." It is further observed that during cross-examination of DW-3 namely Shri Pal testified that in 2018, accused received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant in his presence at the house of the complainant allotted by the CC NI Act 4985/2022 Digitally signed by Page 10 of 13 ANSHUL Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12 15:38:38 +0530 government. However, complainant averred that he got retired from Delhi Police Service in 2011 and he has vacated the government accommodation within six months of his retirement. In 2018, complainant was not even staying at the premises as mentioned by DW-3 in his cross examination. Further, DW-3 failed to mention date or month when he visited the house of the complainant or on which floor the house of the complainant was situated. He stated that he accompanied the accused to Money Changer Kiosk when accused was transferring money to the complainant but he has never seen any receipt of transfer or the money is actually transferred to the complainant. It is important to mention here that all the witnesses including the accused testified about the money taken by the accused way back in 2018-2019. The cheques in question are again stated to be of 2022 and any amount transferred before the cheques in question are not the part of the present matter.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that there are several loopholes in the version of complainant about not reflecting the friendly loan in ITR, failure of complainant to place on record his ITR, alleged diary in which sign of accused was taken and bank statements. However, complainant has examined CW-2 bank witness and has placed on record his bank statement Ex. CW-2/A. It is pertinent to note that accused has failed to point out entries of money transfer that he alleged to transfer in the account of the complainant. Further, it is a well-settled principle of law that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not necessarily render the entire testimony unreliable. Such discrepancies may occur due to normal errors of observation, memory, or expression and do not go to the root of the prosecution's case. In the present matter, while there may be minor variations in the Digitally CC NI Act 4985/2022 signed by ANSHUL Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 11 of 13 ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12 15:38:46 +0530 complainant's statements, these are not material in nature and do not affect the core allegations or the credibility of the complainant. Courts have consistently held that the testimony of a witness should be read as a whole, and not dissected in a hyper- technical manner. Therefore, the minor contradictions pointed out by the defense are insufficient to discredit the complainant's overall account especially when the case of the complainant has been consistent throughout. The accused, having miserably failed to discharge his eventual burden, that fact will have to be taken tone proved by force of presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant.
21. It is significant to note that the accused has not led any cogent evidence in support of his contentions. In absence of any evidence, the plea of the accused cannot be accepted. It is well established principle of law that 'mere taking plea is no proof of it'. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat,4 where it is held that, the court has to consider the surrounding circumstances and the factual situation of the case before concluding that the onus has shifted upon complainant and the presumption has been rebutted successfully by the accused. Hence, merely making bald assertions that cheque is a security cheque and loan has already been repaid to the complainant are not sufficient to tilt the scale of preponderance of probabilities in the favour of accused. The story of accused, in the absence of any cogent evidence, cannot be taken as a gospel truth, specifically, when the complainant has established his case. The accused has failed to adduce any reliable oral or documentary evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the requirement of second ingredient also stands fulfilled.
Digitally
4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 389 signed by
ANSHUL
ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI
CC NI Act 4985/2022 AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.08.12
Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 12 of 13 15:38:50
+0530
22. In view of the above considerations, it can be said that accused has failed to raise suspicion in the version narrated by the complainant by way of cross-examination. The case of the complainant has been consistent throughout the course of trial substantiated by documentary evidences. In fact, accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) read with Section 139 NI Act raised in favour of the complainant. Hence, all the ingredients to constitute the offence under section 138 of NI Act stands proved.
CONCLUSION
23. To recapitulate the above discussion, accused has failed to establish a probable defence on a standard of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 read with Section 118 of NI Act by punching holes in the case of the complainant and making the case of the complainant doubtful. The accused has, thereby, failed to prove that the cheques were not given in discharge of existing legal debt or liability. In the result of the analysis of the present case, accused Sh. Ravinder Singh is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
24. This judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears the signature of the under- signed. Copy of the judgment be uploaded as per rules.Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost as per rules. Convict be now heard on the quantum of Digitally signed by ANSHUL sentence. ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date:
Announced in the Open Court on 2025.08.12
15:38:56 +0530
12th August, 2025 (ANSHUL AGNIHOTRI)
JMFC(NI Act) Digital Court-03
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CC NI Act 4985/2022
Harender Singh v. Ravinder Singh Page 13 of 13