Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Tyagi vs Manohar Lal on 12 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH.GAURAV DAHIYA JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, (NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
ACT) NORTH ROHINI
JUDGMENT
Presided over by: Sh. Gaurav Dahiya CC NI ACT 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal A. CNR No. : DLNT020060192021 B. Date of Institution : 23.06.2021 C. Name of the complainant : Vijay Kumar Tyagi, S/o sh. Om Prakash Tyagi R/o 433A, Pana Bhitrala, Near Panchayat Ghar, Bawana, Delhi.
D. Name of the accused, his : Manohar Lal, S/o Sh. Gangasharan, parentage and address R/o 236, Ganeshpur, Tehsil Mawana, District, Meerut (UP).
E Offence complained of : Under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 F. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
G. Judgment reserved on : 29.04.2026 H. Date of Judgment : 12.05.2026 I. Final Order : Acquittal CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 1 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:27:31 +0530 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
(As mandated U/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Case of the complaint
1. The present judgment is result of the culmination of a trial initiated on the complaint filed by the complainant stating that there were good friendly terms between complainant and the accused for a long time. That in the month of July 2017, accused approached to the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs and the same was given by the complainant in the presence of Shiv Kumar Tyagi who is the relative of the complainant and friend of the accused. That in discharge of the above said liability, accused issued a cheque bearing no. 024438, dated 05.04.2021 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Branch Mawana, Meerut, U.P. That the complainant presented the cheque in question through his banker but the said cheque was returned unpaid and dishonoured with the remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" as per the return memos dated 08.04.2021.
Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice, dated 04.05.2021 and the accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the present CC No. 1499/2021 'Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal' was filed.
2. Cognizance was taken and summons were issued against the accused. On summoning, accused entered his appearance and CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 2 of 22 GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA 17:27:35 +0530 Date: 2026.05.12 thereafter notice under section 251 CrPC was put to the accused on 15.04.2023.
The Defence
3. Plea of defence was recorded on 15.04.2023 wherein, accused stated that he had not filled the particulars of the cheque. He further stated that he used to work in the same place as the complainant's brother-in-law Shiv Kumar Tyagi. He further stated that he used to commute in Shiv Kumar Tyagi's car often and they stopped doing business together in 2017. He further stated that it is possible that some of his cheques accidentally remained in Shiv Kumar Tyagi's car or his bag since they used to work and commute together. He further stated that when one of his cheque got dishonoured on 03.04.2021 with Shiv Kumar Tyagi as the payee's name, he went to the bank and got the payment stopped for the impugned cheque in this case. He further stated that he has no transaction with the complainant. Thereafter, the accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant and the matter was listed for evidence.
Evidence of complainant
4. During CE, complainant adopted his pre-summoning evidence affidavit and relied upon the following documents namely :
1.) The cheque is Ex. CW-1/1.
2.) The return memo which is Ex. CW-1/2.
3.) The legal notice which is Ex. CW-1/3 (colly).CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 3 of 22 Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:27:38 +0530
4.) The postal receipt and its tracking report which is Ex. CW-1/4 and Ex. CW-1/5 (colly.).
5. Thereafter, the complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and his deposition in verbatim is " At present, I am working as a driver. I met the accused in his native village in the year around 2014-2015. I do not have any documentary evidence to show that accused and I had conversation and had met. I do not remember whether I have any record of conversations with the accused between 2014 to 2020. Que. What was your source of funds of the loan advanced to the accused?
Ans. I withdrew the amount for this purpose from my bank account on 14.07.2017.
Que. Do you have any photographs, CCTV footage, loan agreement or any other document to show the handing over of loan amount by you to the accused?
Ans. No. Que. When and where did the accused approach you for the loan?
Ans. Accused so approached me at my house in Delhi. I gave the amount to him on 14.07.2017 and accused had approached me at around one week before I handed him over the loan amount. My brother-in-law namely Shiv Kumar Tyagi was present at my house when I gave the loan amount to the accused. I am well aware of the facts mentioned in the complaint.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for accused shows paragraph 10 of the complaint to the complainant and asks:- In this paragraph you have stated that the loan amount was given to the accused in April CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 4 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:27:40 +0530 2017 and he issued the cheque in question at the same time. However, today you have stated that you gave the loan amount on 14.07.2017. Which one is correct?
Ans. I gave the loan amount on 14.07.2017 and accused issued the cheque in question in the year 2021.
Que. Did you make any calls to the complainant to demand back the loan amount?
Ans. The accused never picked up my phone. It is wrong to suggest that accused and I did not have any transaction as mentioned in the complaint. It is wrong to suggest that accused does not have the liability to pay the cheque amount. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the present case by misusing the cheque of the accused.
Que. Do you have any knowledge about the debt of the accused towards Shiv Kumar Tyagi?
Ans. I only know about my debt from the accused. I know the accused through Shiv Kumar Tyagi as Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi is my brother-in-law. I do not know whether the date of legal demand sent by me to the accused is of the same date as of the legal demand notice sent by Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi to the accused for other cheque bearing no. 024437 in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
It is wrong to suggest that there have no transactions took place between me and the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have misusing the cheque in question to harass the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the present case in connivance along with Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi with view to illegally recover amount from the accused and to extort the money from the accused. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque in question was handed over to Digitally signed by CC NI Act 1499/2021 GAURAV Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal GAURAV DAHIYA Page 5 of 22 DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:27:42 +0530 me by Shiv Kumar Tyagi. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque in question was stolen by Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi and handed over to you. (Vol. I do not know whether Shiv Kumar Tyagi stole cheques of the accused or not.) Que. Can you tell the denomination of the currency notes of the amount given as loan to the accused?
Ans. I gave the currency notes of Rs. 500 in four bundles. I have never gave any money except the loan in question to the accused.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
6. One more witness namely Shiv Kumar Tyagi was examined in CE and examination in chief in verbatim is "The accused is my friend. The accused is a wholeseller of fruits and vegetables. The accused approached me for arranging financial help as he had to pay some payment to someone in Delhi. The accused did not tell me about the person to whom he had to make the payment. I do not remember the date time or month when the accused approached me with the above request. Upon the above request by the accused, I took him to meet my brother in law i.e. the complainant in Delhi as the complainant lives in Delhi. The complainant then called me after around one week of our visit in Delhi and told that he has arranged the money and same can be collected by the accused. After receiving the said call of the complainant, the accused and I went to Delhi on 14.07.2017 and accused collected the amount of Rs. 2 lacs on the same day from the complainant. The amount was given in cash in currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500. The accused could not return the amount to the complainant in cash. The accused then approached CC NI Act 1499/2021 Digitally signed Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 6 of 22 by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:27:45 +0530 me that he would like to return the amount to the complainant by way of cheque so that the accused has a record for the same as well. The accused and I then went to Delhi on 05.04.2021 and the accused handed over a cheque to the complainant on the same day in my presence. I do not know the number or other details of the said cheque. After around 2-3 days I received the call from the complainant that the above cheque given by the accused was dishonored. I then told the accused about the dishonor of the cheque and also advised him to arrange the amount and sort out the issue. The complainant blamed me for introducing the accused and seeing no other option, the complainant filed the present case." Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined as CW2 by the counsel for accused and his deposition in verbatim is "I am a graduate in B.A. I know the accused as he is my neigbour and is from my native village. I know the accused since around 2014-
015. In 2014-2015, I was then working in a private company in Bijnor U.P. It is wrong to suggest that accused was working with me in the same company when I met the accused for the first time. (Vol. Accused and I started a company together after I met the accused.) The accused and I started a registered private limited company in the name of M/s Lokhit Marketing Company and all the necessary documents were prepared by both of us. Our company also had a bank account. I do not remember the exact date, month or year in which the said company was started. I was the director in the above mentioned company. I was the partner in Omkar Business Solution. The accused was also director in the above mention company. It is correct that accused and I used to go on field visits together in my Indica car. I do not know whether the accused kept his personal documents such as his cheque book of CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Digitally Page by GAURAV 7 of 22 signed GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:27:47 +0530 his personal account in my car or not. (Vol. It is possible that some documents of our company such as cheque book etc. were kept in my car. However, all the documents of our company were not kept in the car but were kept in the office.) It is correct that I had issued a legal notice once to the accused in 2019. (Vol. The payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs done by the accused by way of cheque was not cleared but later on the issue got settled with the accused mutually.) It is wrong to suggest that the complainant was a witness in the above stated settlement or that Rs. 2.5 lacs was given by the accused to me in presence of complainant. I do not remember the exact date month or year in which my dispute with the accused was settled. (Vol. It was around 15 days after I sent the legal notice to the accused.) It is wrong to suggest that the complainant has filed the present case in connivance with me due to my prior dispute with the accused and as the complainant was a witness in the above stated settlement. My settlement with the accused was an oral one only. No written document for the said settlement were prepared. It is wrong to suggest that there was no amount of Rs. 2 lacs was given by the complainant to the accused in my presence. No time period for the return of the alleged loan was decidedbetween the complainant and the accused. (Vol. The accused agreed to return the amount after some time when his purpose for the said money was fulfilled.) The telephonic call to demand the amount from the accused after the dishonor of the cheque was done by me as the complainant called me to inform the same and he did not know the accused directly. I do not have any documentary proof of the request made by the accused to me for arranging the financial help for him. I do not have any audio or video recording or any photographs or any written document about the handing over of CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Digitally signed Page 8 of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA 17:27:49 Date: 2026.05.12 +0530 cheque by the accused to the complainant. The amount on the cheque was filled by the accused. (Vol. The accused had brought the cheque in filled condition.) The cheque was handed over directly to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant and I have filed the present case in connivance as the accused belongs to a scheduled caste. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant and I have filed the present case in connivance as the accused kept his cheque book in my car which I misused and gave to the complainant to file the present case. I did not mention in my ITR the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs given to the accused. (Vol. I suffered from paralysis for around 4 years and during this period the affairs of the company were looked after by the accused only.) It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that I was suffering from paralysis. The accused did not inform in my presence about the time for the presentment of the cheque. Apart from the telephonic call, I also made personal visits twice at the house of the accused to demand the amount on behalf of the complainant after the dishonor of the cheque. The accused soughttime to return the amount on several occasions as he was told that he was suffering from financial hardship and business losses then. (Vol. I was also suffering from partial paralysis and could not make further visits to the accused for demanding the amount.) I was calling to the accused on regular intervals between the year 2017 to 2021 to demand the amount. The complainant did not call the accused directly. The complainant used to call me only to demand the money from the accused on his behalf. The accused contacted me one or two days before 05.04.2021 to hand over the cheque to the complainant. I had told the complainant about the same around one or two days before 05.04.2021. I do not Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA CC NI Act 1499/2021 Date:
DAHIYA 2026.05.12 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal 17:27:51 +0530 Page 9 of 22 remember whether the date of the legal notice given by me to the accused is same as of the legal notice given by the complainant to the accused.
Que. Can you tell as to why when the accused did not return the money of the complainant, you gave money to the accused in the year 2019?
Ans. Till the year 2019, no case had been filed by the complainant against the accused.
Accused and I did business together so I gave money to me. I did not file any police complaint against the accused for the return of the money. (Vol. I did not have a dispute with the accused which required a police complaint and the same got settled.) I do not remember whether I had presented some cheques given by the accused to me on the same date as the date of the presentation of the cheque by the complainant. I do not remember that I had deposited the cheque of Rs. 2.5 lacs of the accused on 05.04.2021 in connivance with the complainant. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for accused shows a legal notice dated 30.04.2021 sent by the witness to the accused, copy has been supplied to the opposing counsel, the same is now Mark-X1 to the complainant and asks:- Whether you sent this legal notice to the accused?
Ans. I do not know as I w s then suffering from paralysis. My counsel may have sent this notice.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that the notice Mark-X1 was not sent to the accused on my behalf by my counsel. It is wrong to suggest that accused has notransaction or liability towards the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that accused never had any liability towards me. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque of the accused has been misused by the complainant in connivance CC NI Act 1499/2021 Digitally signed by Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 10 of 22 GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:27:53 +0530 with me. I do not have any other cheque of the accused in my possession. I have not filed any case under Section 138 NI Act against the accused. I do not know as to why the legal notice Mark- 1 was sent to the accused as the matter was already settled between us. (Vol. May be my counsel did not know about the settlement and I was then suffering from paralysis and might have not informed the same to my counsel.) It is wrong to suggest that I got filed the present case in connivance with my brother in law to extort the amount from the accused as I have grievances against the accused for the non-payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs by him to me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely." No other witness was examined by the complainant and CE was closed.
7. The memorandum of statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 09.06.2025 wherein accused stated that he worked with complainant and complainant and Shiv Kumar Tyagi both are relative and they have misused his cheque which might have been stolen by either of them when he used to work with them. He further stated that he did not fill the particulars of the cheque. He further stated that complainant has filed false case against him. He further stated that he does not owe any liability towards the complainant.
8. Thereafter, matter was listed for defence evidence and accused was examined in chief and his deposition in verbatim is "This is false case filed against me. I do not know the complainant, however, the brother in law (Behnoi) of the complainant namely Shiv Kumar Tyagi was known to me. I worked with Shiv Kumar Tyagi and we used to run a company in the name of Lok Hit CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 11 of 22 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:27:55 +0530 Marketing Pvt. Ltd. We used to travel in the common car in the name of Shiv Kumar Tyagi and we used to share same office. All my documents and belongings were usually in the car of Shiv Kumar Tyagi and we had utmost faith in each other. I had never any apprehension of misuse of any of my documents by Shiv Kumar Tyagi . I never had any transactions of any sorts with the complainant. I do not know as to how the complainant came into possession of my cheque i.e. the cheque in question and I have strong apprehension that Shiv Kumar Tyagi might have given the said cheque to the complainant which has been misused by the complainant. Shiv Kumar Tyagi had also filed misused my another cheque from the cheque book and therefore I have apprehension that the present cheque was given by him to the complainant due to some ill motive. Complainant and Shiv Kumar Tyagi have filed the present case against me to harass me and my cheque has been misused and presented against my wishes. I had no liability towards the complainant."
Thereafter, the accused was cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant and his deposition in verbatim is:- "I had worked with the Shiv Kumar Tyagi for around 4-5 years from 2016 to 2019. I can produce the documents of my company with Shiv Kumar Tyagi. I was a director in the said company and my name is in the registration certificate of the company. I can produce the said certificate and other documents to show that I was a director of the company. Since I was a director in the company, I was entitled for any profit in the business of the company. I can not tell the registration number of the car mentioned by me in my examination in chief. None of my documents including my cheque book were ever stolen by anyone.
CC NI Act 1499/2021Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 12signed Digitally of 22 GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:27:58 +0530 Que. Had you ever seen your cheque book and found any missing cheques when you came to know about the present cheque?
Ans. I came to know about my missing cheque only after receiving notice from the Court and thereafter I came to know that four of my cheques which were also the remaining cheques in my cheque book were stolen out of which one was presented by Shiv Kumar Tyagi and another was present by the complainant herein. Que. Had you issued any instructions to your bank qua other two cheques which were allegedly stolen according to you? Ans. I had contacted the bank through customer care services and under my instructions stop payment directive was issued by the bank qua those two cheques.
Que. Had you ever lodged any complaint or FIR reporting theft of your cheques?
Ans. No. I had no knowledge as to how any such complaint or FIR is lodged.
It is correct that I had lodged a complaint against Shiv Kumar Tyagi under SC/ST Act. It is wrong to suggest that I had lodged the said complaint against Shiv Kumar Tyagi for pressurising him and complainant to settle the present matter. It is wrong to suggest that I had taken back the said complaint when its contents were found to be false during investigation. It is correct that Shiv Kumar Tyagi has never filed any case against me.
Court question:- What was the fate of the cheque which was presented by Shiv Kumar Tyagi?
Ans. It was also dishonored.
It is wrong to suggest that no case was filed by Shiv Kumar Tyagi against me because I had made the payment for the dishonored Digitally CC NI Act 1499/2021 signed by Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal GAURAV Page 13 of 22 GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:28:00 +0530 cheque. It is correct that my mobile number is registered with my bank. It is correct that I had received a message on my phone from the bank when the cheque in question got dishonored. The cheque in question does not bear my signature. My cheques were unsigned in the cheque book from which my cheques were misused by Shiv Kumar Tyagi by stealing them from his car. It is wrong to suggest that there were transactions between me and the complainant. Shiv Kumar Tyagi had issued a legal notice to me when the cheque in his possession got dishonored, however, I do not remember the date and particulars of the notice. I had disputes with Shiv Kumar Tyagi before 2021. Shiv Kumar Tyagi had verbally threatened me several times. I had not lodged any complaint against Shiv Kumar Tyagi. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
9. One more witness namely Ramveer Singh was examined in DE and his examination in chief in verbatim is "In the year, 2017 complainant's partner Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi and accused had registered a company in the name of Lokhit Marketing. I was present at the time of registration of the said company in Meerut. I used to work in the above said company from 2017-2018. The company never came under any financial distress when I was working with the company till the end of year 2018 when the company winded up its operations. The partner of the complainant namely Shiv Kumar Tyagi asked for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the accused saying that the company has suffered losses and you will compensate for the same. The said demand was made by Shiv Kumar Tyagi in our presence and it was also said by him that if his demand are not met then he will ruin the accused. No financial CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 14 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:28:03 +0530 transactions took place in my presence. I do not know any transaction related to the cheque in question. I brought on record copy of my Adhar Card which is now Ex. DW-2/1.
Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined as DW2 by the counsel for complainant and his deposition in verbatim is " I do not have any ID Card related to the above said company to show that I was actually working in the company (Vol. I had an ID at the relevant time, however, I do not have any such ID with me now).
I cannot bring any such ID card now. I do not know the exact date, month and time when Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the accused. (Vol. It was in the start of the year 2019). I do not have any personal knowledge about the present transaction including the cheque in question. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
10. On the same day, one more witness namely Abhay Singh was examined in DE and he was examined in chief and his deposition in verbatim is "I was a distributor in a company in the name of Lokhit Marketing which was being run by Manohar Lal Sagar and Shiv Kumar Tyagi in the year 2017. The partner of the complainant namely Shiv Kumar Tyagi asked for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the accused saying that the company has suffered losses and you will compensate for the same. The said demand was made by Shiv Kumar Tyagi in my presence. On our assurance, the accused had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to Shiv Kumar Tyagi, however, he insisted on receiving of complete amount of Rs. 1 lakh. I have no personal knowledge as far as any transaction related to the cheque in question is concerned. It is wrong to CC NI Act 1499/2021 Digitally signed Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 15 of 22 by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:28:06 +0530 suggest that I am deposing falsely. I brought on record copy of my Adhar Card which is now Ex. DW-3/1.
Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined as DW-3 by the counsel for complainant and his deposition in verbatim is "I do not have any ID Card related to the above said company to show that I was actually working in the company (Vol. I had an ID at the relevant time, however, I do not have any such ID with me now).
I cannot bring any such ID card now. I do not know the exact date, month and time when Mr. Shiv Kumar Tyagi had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the accused. (Vol. It was in the start of the year 2019). I do not have any personal knowledge about the present transaction including the cheque in question. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
11. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that due to friendly relations between the parties a friendly loan was given by the complainant to the accused for a short period in lieu of which cheque in question was given by the accused. It was further argued that dishonourment of cheque, supporting delivery of legal notice at the correct address of the accused, statutory presumption is raised against the accused which he has failed to rebut.
12. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of accused that there are several discrepancies in the case of the complainant which are CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 16 of 22 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12 17:28:08 +0530 sufficient enough to rebut the presumption and the complainant on his part has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Law
13. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt elements of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act by crossing the following legal benchmarks.
a) The cheque was drawn by drawer on an account maintained by him with the banker for payment of any amount of money out of that account to the complainant.
b) The said payment was made for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, in whole or in part.
c) The said cheque was returned unpaid by the bank.
d) The cheque was presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
e) The payee or the Holder in due course of the cheques as the case may be made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving the 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.
f) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be the Holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
CC NI Act 1499/2021 Digitally signed
Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal by GAURAV
Page 17 of 22
GAURAV DAHIYA
DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12
17:28:10 +0530
Appreciation of Evidence and Application of the law to the facts of present case
14. In the case in hand, the accused has disputed the fact of issuance of cheque and has also denied his signatures on the cheque in question. It is a matter of record that the cheque in question was returned unpaid by the bank with remarks of "Payment Stopped by Drawer".
15. The accused in his plea of defence as well as in his statement under section 313 CrPC stated that the cheque in question was never issued in favour of the complainant and does not bear his signature. He explained that he used to work with brother-in-law of the complainant who might have stolen and misused the cheque in question. He stated that brother in law of the complainant had also sent a legal demand notice on the basis of a different cheque and stop payment instructions were given to the bank for all the cheques thereafter. This fact of stop payment instructions is supported by the bank return memo brought on record by the complainant itself. Thus, the issuance and the execution of the instrument itself is in dispute in the present case.
16. The case of the complainant is that due to good friendly relationship with the accused for several years, he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs and that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of the liability. The complainant has placed reliance on the cheque in question allegedly issued by the accused in discharge of his liability, bank return memo and the legal demand notice. It is an admitted position that there is no written document supporting the transaction.
CC NI Act 1499/2021 Digitally signed
by GAURAV
Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal GAURAVPageDAHIYA
18 of 22
DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12
17:28:13 +0530
17. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is that he and the brother in law of the complainant used to work together and his cheques accidentally remained in the car of the brother-in-law of the complainant who misused his cheques . It is his case that when one of his cheques got dishonoured on 03.04.2021 with Shiv Kumar Tyagi as payee name, he went to the bank and issued stop payment instructions. It is his defence that he had no transactions with the complainant. The accused on his part examined himself as a witness and has been relying upon the discrepancies and contradictions in the averments and cross examination of the complainant as well as inconsistencies in the depositions of the complainant as well as the independent witness produced by the complainant.
18. The complainant has produced his brother-in-law as a witness who deposed that the loan was given by the complainant in his presence. A careful perusal of his cross-examination would show that there are several doubtful depositions made by him. The witness did not disclose about his business relations with the accused and his financial dealings with the accused in his examination in chief. It is during his cross-examination that he disclosed that he had a business partnership with the accused and that there were some financial dealings and disputes between them. He deposed that he had also settled a payment dispute with accused in the year 2019. In the case in hand, it is alleged that loan was given by the complainant in the presence of the witness and the witness deposed that several efforts were made by him on behalf of the complainant for seeking recovery of the loan amount from the accused. However, he admitted that he had also given a loan in the year 2019 i.e. after the alleged loan of the complainant and it is not understandable as to why someone would give a loan to a person who is already in default of another loan from CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 19 of 22 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12 17:28:16 +0530 his own relative. The witness was also confronted with a legal notice dated 30.04.2021 and he choose to give evasive replies. It was deposed that his counsel may have issued the notice without informing him. However, in the later part, he admitted that the notice was sent for a matter already settled. Again, it is not understandable as to why a counsel would issue a notice without knowledge of a party. These evasive replies coupled with withholding of important facts during examination in chief and previous history of disputes and dealings between the witness and the accused, substantiate the story of the accused that the payment was stopped by him when one of his cheques got dishonoured with Shiv Kumar Tyagi as payee name.
19. It is also pertinent to mention that the alleged loan was given in the year 2017, whereas the cheque in question was issued allegedly in the year 2021 i.e. Even after expiry of three years and it is not explained anywhere in the complaint as to what steps were taken by the complainant for seeking recovery of the loan amount during those three years and it is not understandable as to why payment through cheque was sought after more than three years of the transaction. The accused on his part has taken a consistent stand throughout and the story of the accused of misuse of his cheque and payment being stopped by him on being aware about misuse of cheque seems more probable. It is also substantiated by the fact that the ink of the pen with which the particulars in the cheque have been filled is different from the ink with which the cheque has been signed, as if he would have issued the cheque in discharge of legally existing liability, he could have filled all the particulars simultaneously while signing the same.
CC NI Act 1499/2021 Digitally signed
Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page
by 20 of 22
GAURAV
GAURAV DAHIYA
DAHIYA Date:
2026.05.12
17:28:18 +0530
20. The story of the accused of having financial dealings and disputes with the brother-in-law of the complainant is also corroborated by the independent witnesses produced in defence. The witnesses namely Ram Veer Singh and Abhay Singh in their testimony as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively deposed that Mr Shiv Kumar Tyagi and the accused were partners in a company/firm and there were some financial disputes between them. Though both the witnesses deposed that they do not know anything concerning the transactions related to the cheque in question. However, their deposition is material on the aspect of some financial disputes between the accused and the brother-in-law of the complainant.
21. The accused during his cross-examination has very categorically deposed that his cheques were unsigned in the cheque book when the same were allegedly taken away by the brother-in-law of the complainant and misused. The signature on the cheque were denied by the accused at the very first instance in his plea defence and the complainant could have summoned the bank witness to at least prove the signatures of the accused, however, no such steps were taken. The testimony of the independent witness concerning the transaction is doubtful due to the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the complainant has failed to remove the suspicion in his story. Accordingly, the court of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Resultantly, accused Manohar Lal stands acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
CC NI Act 1499/2021Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page
Digitally 21 of 22
signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
DAHIYA
DAHIYA Date: 2026.05.12
17:28:20 +0530
23. This judgment contains 22 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
24. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, North forthwith.
Announced in the open court in this Court onDigitally Daysigned of 12.05.2026.
by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA Date:
DAHIYA 2026.05.12 17:28:23 (GAURAV DAHIYA) +0530 JMFC/NI ACT COURT NORTHDISTRICT,ROHINI 12.05.2026 CC NI Act 1499/2021 Vijay Kumar Tyagi Vs. Manohar Lal Page 22 of 22