Delhi District Court
Jeetesh Chhabra vs Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, DISTRICT
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Neha Garg, DJS
CNR NO. DLET020070402020
CT CASE NO. 1579/2020
JITESH CHHABRA
VS.
SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
1.) Name of the Complainant : Jitesh Chhabra
S/o Sh. Vinod Chhabra,
R/o F-11/25, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
2.) Name of the accused : Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal
and parentage S/o Sh. Chatur Bhuj, Proprietor
of M/S Shri Shyam Dhani
Trading Co., R/o C-44, Aravali
Kunj Apartment, Pocket-42,
Sector13, Rohini, Delhi-110031.
3.) Offence complained of : u/s. 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
4.) Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
5.) Date of institution of the case : 29.07.2020
6.) Final order : CONVICTED
7.) Reserved for judgment on : 26.09.2025
8.) Judgment pronounced on : 18.10.2025
CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 1 of 21
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.18
14:48:52
+0530
JUDGMENT
01.By way of the present Judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by Jitesh Chhabra (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') against Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') u/s. 138 r/w s. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act') for dishonor of two cheques bearing no. 000263 amounting to ₹15,00,000/- and bearing no. 000264 amounting ₹7,00,000/-, both dated 17.02.2020 and both drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the cheques in question').
BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE: -
02.Succinctly put, it is the case of complainant that he and the accused was having friendly relations and that the accused approached the complainant for a friendly loan of ₹15,00,000/- in the last week of February 2017, with an assurance to repay the same within a period of one year. It is stated that based on prior relations with the accused and on his repeated assurances, the complainant disbursed ₹15,00,000/- through RTGS to the accused on 04.03.2017. It is stated that again in the last week of July, accused approached the complainant and further demanded a sum of ₹7,00,000 and assured to repay the entire amount of ₹22,00,000/- to the complainant in the month of March 2018. It is stated that due to repeated assurances of the accused, complainant further paid an amount of ₹7,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash on 30.07.2017. It is further stated that accused started repaying the amount to the complainant in installment through RTGS and he deposited a total sum of ₹3,68,750/- in the account of the complainant within a period of 3 years. It is further stated that in the month of January 2020, when the complainant demanded his money back, accused CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 2 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:53 +0530 apologized for his conduct in delaying the payment and he told the complainant that he will not adjust the amount of ₹3,68,750/- transferred by him in the account of the complainant and the accused issued the cheques in question and assured the complainant that the aforesaid cheques would be encashed on their presentation.
03.It is further stated that the cheques in question issued by the accused were deposited by the complainant in his bank i.e., Yes Bank Ltd., Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the same were returned dishonored with the remarks 'Payments stopped by the drawer' on 18.02.2020. It is further stated that complainant contacted the accused and disclosed about the dishonour of cheques in question and demanded the amount of ₹22,00,000/-, but the accused flatly refused to give the said amount to the complainant. Consequently, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.03.2020 u/s. 138 of the NI Act to the accused through speed post and Regd. AD but despite the service of the legal notice, the accused had not made the payments of the above said cheques. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT: -
04.The cognizance of the complainant was taken and accused was summoned vide Order dated 21.10.2020. Notice u/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 26.11.2021 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for complainant evidence.
05.Thereafter, complainant examined himself as CW-1 in support of his case. CW-1 was examined, cross-examined and discharged and thereafter, complainant evidence was closed on 25.07.2024 and statement of accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.
CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 3 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:51 +0530 was recorded separately on 29.08.2024, wherein accused has stated that he had only taken a sum of ₹15,00,000/- from complainant through RTGS and he has returned around ₹3 to ₹4 lakhs through bank account and he did not take an further amount of ₹7 lakhs from the complainant as alleged by him. Accused has stated that he had received the legal demand notice from the complainant and a false case has been filed against him.
06.Thereafter, the matter was listed for defence evidence. Accused has examined four witnesses, including himself, in support of his defence. All the defence witnesses were cross-examined and discharged and DE was closed vide order dated 20.09.2025 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
07. I have heard both the Counsels at length. I have considered the evidence led by both the parties carefully and have perused the Court record thoroughly.
LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION: -
08.Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence u/s. 138 of the NI Act, the complainant must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence, as highlighted below:
1st Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
2nd Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 4 of 21
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.18
14:48:52
+0530
3rd Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
4th Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
5th Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
09.Once the ingredients mentioned in the foregoing paragraph are established by the complainant, then as soon as the execution of impugned cheque is admitted by the accused, a factual base is established to invoke the presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability by virtue of Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act. This is a reverse onus clause, which means that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the impugned cheque was drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received it in discharge of a debt/ liability from the accused. In the case titled as Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that once the accused has admitted the signature on the cheque in question, then the court is bound to raise presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
10.It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 that a reverse onus clause usually CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 5 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden and when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. It was further held that the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COUNSELS: -
11.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the accused should be convicted of offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act because the complainant has proved the original cheques, which the accused has not disputed as being drawn on his account. He has further submitted that the cheques in question were returned unpaid vide cheques returning memos which are on record. The same are not disputed by accused. He has further submitted that the accused has admitted the receipt of the legal demand notice and the fact that the payment was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice is also not disputed. Ld. Counsel for complainant has further submitted that the defence of accused that he had made payments on various occassions to the complainant in cash is false as the complainant has failed to produce any documentary proof of the alleged repayment(s) made by him. Ld. counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has in fact failed to specify the date(s) or the month(s) on which he is alleged to have repaid the amount to the complainant or the exact amount that he returned by him to the complainant in cash. Ld. counsel for complainant has further submitted that all the defence witnesses examined by the accused are CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 6 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:51 +0530 interested witnesses being known to the accused and therefore, no weight can be attached to the testimony of the said witnesses. Ld. counsel for complainant has further pointed out that even the defence witnesses examined by the accused have failed to specify the dates, months or the year(s) when the accused is alleged to have returned the amount to the complainant in their presence or the exact amount of cash that was repaid to the complainant. It has further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the falsity of the testimonies of the defence witnesses in palpably apparent from the fact that although all the defence witnesses, including the accused himself, have deposed about the alleged payment(s) made by the accused to the complainant yet none of them, except DW-3 who has made vague averments about the presence of two-three persons, have deposed about the presence of other persons when the alleged payments were made.
12.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that complainant is a money lender who lends money to people on interest without any valid money lending license. He has further submitted that the accused only took a loan of ₹15,00,000/- from the complainant through RTGS and he had returned the said amount to the complainant through account transfer of ₹3 to ₹5 lakhs and the remaining amount was paid in cash to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the accused never took any cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- from the complainant as alleged by the complainant and that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability of the accused towards the complainant to the tune of the amount of the cheques in question as the cheques in question were actually handed over as security cheques to the complainant in the year 2017 but the complainant has CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 7 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:51 +0530 misused the same by presenting them in the year 2020. Ld. Counsel for accused has further submitted that admittedly the accused had repaid an amount of ₹3,68,750/- to the complainant through RTGS and therefore, the presentation of cheque bearing no. 000263 and its subsequent dishonor for the total amount of ₹15 lakhs without there being any endorsement thereon in terms of Sec. 56 of the NI Act about the part payment, would not attract Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act for the dishonor of the said cheque.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION: -
13.In the present case, in order to discharge the initial burden to prove the above-
mentioned ingredients, complainant has relied upon his evidence affidavit being Ex. CW1/A and placed on record several documents being Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/8. Accused has admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. Accordingly, this Court raises presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that the cheques in question were issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. In order to rebut the presumption, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that there was no liability for the amount of the cheques in question. 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 favour of the complainant. Now I shall be discussing in detail the defences of the accused.
DEFENCE THAT THE COMPLAINANT DOES NOT POSSESS A MONEY LENDING LICENSE: -
14. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the complainant is a money lender, who provides loan on a higher rate of interest to needy persons without having CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 8 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 any money lending license and accordingly, he is debarred from recovering alleged loan amount.
15.In order to decide the aforesaid objection, it is pertinent to refer to the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Singh Nanda vs. State & Another, Crl.M.C.209/2009 decided on 09.02.2009, where the argument that the complainant is debarred from recovering loan amount as he is not a registered money lender, was rejected. It was observed as under: -
"The next argument addressed by the petitioner that the respondent was debarred from recovering the loan amount being not a registered money lender does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner for two reasons: The petitioner took the loan from the respondent voluntarily and even executed an agreement in this regard whereby he agreed to repay the same after ninety days with interest. At the same time, he also issued the cheque in question for the repayment of the loan but became dishonest when the cheque was presented for encashment. The 2nd reason to reject the argument of the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act are not recovery proceeding but are proceedings to punish a person who after issuing a cheque fails to honour the same and also commits a default in paying the said amount on receipt of the notice."
16.Reliance is also placed on Kajal vs. Vikas Marwah, Crl.A. 870/2013 decided on 27.03.2014 wherein it was observed as under: -
"In my view, even if the appellant/complainant was engaged in lending money, that would not debar her from filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if a cheque issued to her towards repayment of the loan advanced by her is CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 9 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:53 +0530 dishonoured by the bank for want of funds and the drawer of the cheques fails to make payment within the prescribed time, after receipt of legal notice from the lender. Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders' Act, 1938, which applies to Delhi, to the extent it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit by a money lender for the recovery of a loan shall, after the commencement of the Act, be dismissed unless the money lender at the time of institution of the suit is registered and holds a valid license or holds a certificate from the Commissioner granted under Section 11 of the Act, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted or if he is not already a registered or licensed money lender, he satisfies the court that he has applied for such registration or license but the application is pending. The aforesaid provision does not debar a money lender from instituting a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is a remedy enforceable before a criminal court, and totally independent of a civil suit. The criminal liability is incurred only in case a cheque is issued in discharge of a debt or other liability and the said cheque is dishonoured for want of funds and the borrower fails to make payment of the amount of the cheque even after receipt of a notice from the lender."
17.Also, in Guddo Devi @ Guddi vs. Bhupender Kumar, Crl.Rev.P. 1246/2019 decided on 11.02.2020, it was observed that there is no material to conclude that the respondent was carrying on the business of advancing loans. Merely because the respondent had lent money to three or four persons, did not lead to the inference that the respondent had been carrying out the activity of money lending as a business.
CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 10 of 21
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.18
14:48:53
+0530
18.In view of afore cited judgments, it is clear that if a person advances a loan, even without having a valid money lending licence, he can still prosecute the complaint u/s. 138 of the NI Act and he has to satisfy only the mandatory requirement of Section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, the defence of the accused that the complainant is debarred from recovering the alleged loan amount as he does not have any money lending license, is untenable and the same is rejected.
DEFENCE OF SECURITY CHEQUE(S): -
19. It is defence of accused that the cheques in question were handed over as security cheques to the complainant in the year 2017 which have been misused by the complainant.
20. It is pertinent to note that even if the cheques in question were given as a security, the same does not rescue the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed by this Court on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458, and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely because a cheque has been given for security purposes does not mean that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant, however, it does mean that the Court has to see whether there exists legally enforceable debt or liability as on the date mentioned on the cheque or whether a legally enforceable debt or liability has arisen at the time of presentation of the cheque.
21. The defence of security cheque has been discussed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at length in the case of Credential Leasing & Credits Ltd. vs. Shruti CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 11 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 Investments & Anr. (2015) 3 BC 691 wherein Hon'ble High Court has relied upon Suresh Chandra Goyal vs. Amit Singhal, Crl. Appeal Nos. 601/2015 decided on 14.05.2015, holding that:
"There is no magic in the word "security cheque", such that, the moment the accused claims that the dishonoured cheque (in respect whereof a complaint under Section 138 of the Act is preferred) was given as a "security cheque", the Magistrate would acquit the accused. The expression "security cheque" is not a statutorily defined expression in the NI Act. The NI Act does not per se carve out an exception in respect of a 'security cheque' to say that a complaint in respect of such a cheque would not be maintainable. There can be mirade situations in which the cheque issued by the accused may be called as security cheque, or may have been issued by way of a security, i.e. to provide an assurance or comfort to the drawee, that in case of failure of the primary consideration on the due date, or on the happening (or not happening) of a contingency, the security may be enforced. While in some situations, the dishonor of such a cheque may attract the penal provisions contained in Section 138 of the Act, in others it may not."
(emphasis laid)
22. At this juncture, it is imperative to discuss the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002 wherein a similar defence of 'security cheque' given at the time of entering into a loan agreement was taken by the accused. It was clearly held by the Hon'ble Court that if a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 12 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:53 +0530 drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow. Therefore, the defence of accused that cheques in question were security cheques is untenable and the burden is still upon accused to prove that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability upon him.
DEFENCE THAT THERE IS NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT/LIABILITY: -
23.It is the defence of the accused that he had only taken a sum of ₹15,00,000/- as loan through RTGS from the complainant and that he never took cash amount of ₹7,00,000/- lakhs from the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has already returned the amount of ₹15,00,000/- to the complainant through account transfer of ₹3 to ₹5 lakhs and cash payment of the remaining amount.
24.At the very onset, it is pertinent to note here that the accused has not disputed that he has obtained loan of ₹15,00,000/- through RTGS from the complainant. However, the accused has denied that he took cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- from the complainant on 30.07.2017. In view of these facts, I shall firstly proceed to decide the defence of the accused that he never took any cash loan from the complainant as alleged by the latter. The said defence of accused requires a conscientious consideration of the evidence of the case. Complainant has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A that he and the accused had good friendly relations and keeping into consideration the same, he had advanced loan of ₹15,00,000/- to the accused on 04.03.2017 through RTGS and the accused had CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 13 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 undertaken to repay the same within one year. Complainant has further deposed that the accused again approached him in the last week of July, 2017 for a further loan of ₹7,00,000/- and he undertook to repay the entire amount of ₹22,00,000/- to the complainant in the month of March, 2018. Complainant has deposed that in view of the friendly relationship between them, he gave a further cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- to the accused on 30.07.2017 but in March, 2018 accused expressed his inability to repay the loan amount and from time to time and the accused continued to deposit certain amount(s) totaling ₹3,68,750/- through RTGS in the account of the complainant. Complainant has further deposed that finally in the month of January, 2020, the accused apologized for the delay in making the payment and told the complainant that he will not adjust the amount of ₹3,68,750/- transferred in the account of the complainant and he had issued the cheques in question for a sum of ₹22,00,000/- in discharge of his liability towards the complainant.
25. Complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that it is true that there is no receipt on record of the alleged transactions between him and the accused in the present case and he has denied the suggestion that no receipt of the transaction of ₹7,00,000/- has been placed on record as no such transaction took place. Complainant has further deposed that he did not file ITR during the financial year 2017-18 and he has denied the suggestion that he did not file any ITR as he did not have any source of income. Complainant has further deposed that he worked in Dubai till the year 2014-16 and his source of income was his personal savings. Complainant has denied the suggestion that he has falsely deposed that he did not file any ITR during the relevant period. Complainant has further deposed that he CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 14 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 was working abroad during the relevant period.
26. The accused has examined himself and three other witnesses in support of his defence. DW-1/ Sh. Deepak Kumar has deposed that accused is his friend and he used to go to the godown of the accused on various occasions. DW1 has deposed that he was told by the accused that the accused has taken some amount from the complainant and that around the year 2018 to 2020, the accused had paid around ₹1 to ₹1.5 lakhs to the complainant and that at the same instance, complainant had informed the accused that all the dues were clear and the security cheques of the accused will be returned to him. DW1 has deposed in his cross-examination that he knows the accused since childhood but he does not remember the address of the godown of the accused. DW1 has further deposed that he does not remember the dates and months when the accused returned the amount to the complainant or the exact amount that was returned by the accused to the complainant.
27. DW2/Dinesh Kumar has deposed that he has been regularly visiting the godown of accused since last 10-12 years for purchasing goods and when he visited the godown of the accused, he met complainant and there was a conversation between the complainant and the accused about financial transactions in his presence 2-3 times. DW3 has further deposed that the accused handed over approximately ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakhs to the complainant in the month of September-October, 2019. DW3 has deposed in his cross-examination that he has good business terms with the accused for the past 12-13 years and he does not remember the exact date or the month when the accused had made payment of ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakhs to the complainant and that no written document of the payment was executed in his CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 15 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:53 +0530 presence. DW3 has further deposed that two or three persons were also sitting at the time of handing of amount of ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakhs to the complainant in the month of September-October, 2019. DW3 has further deposed that accused had told him that the former has taken around ₹10 to ₹15 lakhs from the complainant on the day when the accused was making payment to the complainant in his presence.
28. DW4/Chaterbhuj, who is the father of the accused, has deposed that the accused has returned the amount of ₹15,00,000/- to the complainant at various occasions in the year 2018-19 and that the accused has given two cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security and after the return of the full amount to the compliant, the complainant did not return of the security cheques to the accused despite assurance. DW4 has deposed in his cross-examination that he is residing at his address with the accused for 7-8 years and that he does not remember the date, month or the year when the accused has taken the amount form the complainant or when he had returned the amount to the complainant.
29. Accused has himself stepped into the witness box and deposed as DW2. Accused has deposed that he had received a sum of ₹15,00,000/- through RTGS from the account of the complainant and in lieu of the same, he had given two security cheques to the complainant. Accused has deposed that the complainant has filed the present case for a sum of ₹22,00,000/- despite the fact that he had made payments on various occasions through Bank transfer as well as through cash to the complainant. Accused has deposed that he had repaid the whole amount of ₹15,00,000/- to the complainant and despite assurance, the complainant did not return his security cheques but has filed the present false complaint. Accused has admitted in his cross-examination that he had received the legal demand notice.
CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 16 of 21
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA GARG
GARG Date:
2025.10.18
14:48:51
+0530
Accused has further deposed that he does not remember the dates or the months when he had returned the amount to the complainant but the same was returned in the year 2018-19. Accused has further deposed that he has returned maximum amount to the complainant in cash but he does not remember the exact amount that he had returned in cash to the complainant and that no receipt was taken from the complainant for the cash amount given to him. Accused has admitted that he does not possess any documentary evidence to prove that he has returned the entire amount to the complainant and that he did not file any complaint regarding the misuse of the cheques.
30. A bare perusal of the afore-cited testimonies of the defence witnesses shows that DW-1 and DW-4 have not deposed anything about the amount that was taken by the accused from the complainant. Both the said witnesses have only deposed about the repayment made by the accused to the complainant. DW-3 has deposed that accused has told him that he has taken ₹10-15 lakhs from the complainant and the said testimony of DW-3 appears to be hearsay as no amount was lent in his presence. In fact, on a conscientious perusal of the testimony of accused/DW-2 reveals that apart from his deposition that he had received a sum of ₹15,00,000/- from the complainant through RTGS, he has not deposed anything about the cash loan of ₹7,00,000/-. The entire testimony of accused is with respect to the repayment of the loan amount to the complainant in cash. Admittedly, the accused had received the legal demand notice sent by the complainant. Despite the service of the legal demand notice, the accused did not setup any case that he has not received cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- from the complainant by replying to the same. No complaint was made by the accused regarding the misuse of his security CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 17 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 cheques.
31. Also, nothing significant has been brought in the cross-examination of the complainant to raise any suspicion in the case set up by the complainant that he had advanced cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- to the accused on 30.07.2017. The case of the complainant has been consistent throughout as can be noticed from a perusal of the complaint, demand notice and affidavit evidence. Apart from certain suggestions put to the complainant in his cross-examination, the accused has not brought any substantive evidence in support of his defence that he did not take any cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- from the complainant as alleged. Mere suggestion put to the complainant in his cross-examination will not take place of substantive prof and the same will not help the accused to discharge the burden of proof cast on him to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that there was no liability for cheque bearing no. 000264 dated 17.02.2020 for a sum of ₹7,00,000 /-. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the defence of the accused that he never took cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- from the complainant remains unproved.
32. Now coming to the second leg of the defence under consideration, as stated earlier, the accused has not disputed that he has obtained loan of ₹15,00,000/- through RTGS from the complainant. The only defence set up by the accused is that he has already repaid the said amount to the complainant through RTGS and in cash. It is to be noted that none of the defence witnesses, including accused himself, have been able to specify the date or the month or the exact amount that was allegedly paid by the accused to the complainant in cash. Admittedly, DW-1 and DW-3 are acquainted with the accused from a long time and DW-4 is the father of the accused. Hence, all the witnesses examined by the accused are CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 18 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:53 +0530 interested witnesses. The inability of all the defence witness to depose about the material particulars of date, month or the exact amount allegedly returned by the accused to the complainant in cash coupled with the fact that the said witnesses are interested witnesses, makes the entire testimonies of the said witnesses unreliable and unworthy of credit.
33. Also, a joint reading of the testimony of the defence witnesses reveals material contradictions/inconsistencies. On one hand, DW-1 has deposed that around the year 2018-2020, the accused has paid ₹1 Lakh to 1.5 lakhs to the complainant in his presence and DW-3 has deposed that the accused has handed over cash payment of ₹1.5 lakhs to 2 lakhs to the complainant in the month of September/October 2019 whereas, on the other hand the accused and his father i.e. DW-4 have deposed that the accused has returned the entire amount of ₹15,00,000/- to the complainant in the year 2018-2019. It is also pertinent to note here that although all the defence witnesses, including the accused himself, have deposed about the alleged payment(s) made by the accused to the complainant yet none of them, except DW-3 who has made vague averments about the presence of two-three persons, have deposed about the presence of other persons when the alleged payments were made.
34. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that admittedly the accused had repaid an amount of ₹3,68,750/- to the complainant through RTGS and therefore, the presentation of cheque bearing no. 000263 and its subsequent dishonor for the total amount of ₹15,00,000/- without there being any endorsement thereon in terms of Sec. 56 of the NI Act about the part payment, would not attract Sec. 138 of the NI Act for the dishonor of the said cheque. The afore-said argument has CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 19 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:53 +0530 been countered by Ld. Counsel for complainant, who has submitted that the complainant has specifically deposed that the accused has agreed not to adjust the said sum of ₹3,68,750/- against the loan amount.
35. The argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant finds merit with me as the complainant has deposed in his evidence affidavit that the accused has agreed not to adjust the said sum of ₹3,68,750/- against the loan amount and the complainant has not been cross-examined on the afore-said aspect meaning thereby that the afore-said testimony of the complainant has gone unrebutted. The accused has not challenged the testimony of the complainant that the accused has himself adjusted the sum of ₹3,68,750/- on account of the delay in repayment and therefore, the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused that the presentation of cheque bearing no. 000263 and its subsequent dishonor for the total amount of ₹15,00,000/- without there being any endorsement thereon in terms of Sec. 56 of the NI Act about the part payment of ₹3,68,750/-, would not attract Sec. 138 of the NI Act for the dishonor of the said cheque, stands rejected.
36. Since, it stands established that the accused has signed the cheques in question, the presumption u/s. 118 and 139 of the NI Act takes effect and the complainant's case satisfies all the ingredients necessary for securing a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. The defense of the accused was that the cheques in question were not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused having miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant (reliance herein is placed on the judgment in Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh SLP (Crl.) No. 12802 of 2022). Accordingly, the defence of CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 20 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:52 +0530 the accused that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability of the accused towards the complainant for the amount of the cheques in question goes unproved and the same accordingly stands rejected.
FINAL ORDER: -
37. On a consideration of the totality of factors pleaded by the accused in his defence, it becomes clear that the accused has merely paid lip service to his defence and has not led any cogent evidence to establish it or draw any circumstance against the case of the complainant which probabilizes his defence.
38. Accordingly, the accused Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Chatur Bhuj is convicted of the offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Announced in the open Court (NEHA GARG) on 18.10.2025 JMFC-02, East District, KKD Courts, Delhi
Note: This judgment contains 21 pages and each page has been signed by me.
CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 21 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
2025.10.18 14:48:51 +0530