Bangalore District Court
M Suresh vs S Chandru on 8 September, 2025
KABC030956722018
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 8th day of September 2025
C.C.No. 34661 / 2018
Complainant : M. Suresh
Since deceased by
By legal heir
Nagarjun S.
R/at No. 31, 8th Cross, 7th Main Road,
Sampangiramanagar,
Bangalore - 27
{ By Sri.V. Srinivasan - Advocate }
Vs.
S. Chandru S
Accused :
S/o. P. Shekhar,
2 C.C. 34661 / 2018
Residing at No.51, 5th Cross,
4th Main Road, S.R.Nagar,
Bangalore - 562 027
Mobile " 9880853031
(By Sri.D R Basavarajappa - Adv.)
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 08.09.2025
3 C.C. 34661 / 2018
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act").
02. The factual matrix of the complaint are as under:-
It is alleged that, the Complainant and accused are friends for the past several years. There was several financial transaction between both of them i.e. the accused used to take amount from the Complainant and repay the same promptly. The father of the accused was also close friend of the Complainant . It is contended that, in the month of June 2017 the accused has approached the Complainant to advance him a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to develop his IT company. Accordingly, the Complainant has advanced Rs.25 lakhs to the accused on different dates. Towards the discharge of the said amount the 4 C.C. 34661 / 2018 accused has issued following cheques towards repayment of the loan of the Complainant .
Date Cheque No. Bank Amount(Rs)
22.11.2018 817994 Canara Bank, 6,00,000/-
J P Nagar II Phase,
Bangalore
22.11.2018 817995 Canara Bank, 6,00,000/-
J P Nagar II Phase,
Bangalore
22.11.2018 817998 Canara Bank, 4,50,000/-
J P Nagar II Phase,
Bangalore
22.11.2018 817999 Canara Bank, 4,50,000/-
J P Nagar II Phase,
Bangalore
22.11.2018 818000 Canara Bank, 4,00,000/-
J P Nagar II Phase,
Bangalore
It is contended that, when the Complainant has presented all these cheques with his banker for encashment , they all have returned unpaid with a shara as 'Kindly contact drawer drawee bank' vide bank memo dated 28.11.2018. Thereafter on 05.12.2018 the Complainant got issued demand notice to the accused by speed post and DTDC courier service, both the notices have delivered to the accused and accused has given reply on 14.12.2018 by denying his liability. Accordingly, he sought to convict the 5 C.C. 34661 / 2018 accused under section 138 of NI Act and grant him compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C.
03. On presentation of the complaint and after verification of the records having made out prima facie case cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 138 of NI Act As per verdicts Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528 in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded in the form of affidavit as PW1. During the pendency of the complaint the Complainant has died and his son by name Nagarajun S has filed application u/s 302 Cr.P.C., since the legal heir of the deceased Complainant can proceed with the complaint, the said IA has been allowed and the son of deceased Complainant is permitted to prosecute the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint has been amended and carried out the amendment and thereafter amended complaint has bee filed. The legal heir of the deceased Complainant again filed affidavit evidence in the form of 6 C.C. 34661 / 2018 sworn statement as PW1 and got marked in all 16 documents . Having made out prima facie case it is ordered to register the complaint in register No.III and to issue process against the accused.
04. In response to the court summons, the accused has appeared before this court through his counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along with necessary applications. Since the alleged offense is bailable, the accused is enlarged on bail. The plea has been recorded and read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and wanted to put forth his defense. The sworn statement has been treated as affidavit evidence and the accused has been permitted to cross-examine of PW1. After Complainant side evidence over, the statement of accused has been recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to him the incriminating evidence, the accused denied the same in toto and and admitted that, he has received demand notice so also given reply and has submitted to adduce his side evidence. The accused by 7 C.C. 34661 / 2018 name S. Chandru has led his oral evidence as DW1 and got marked no documents on his behalf. However, during the cross examination of PW1 three documents have been confronted and got marked as Ex.D1 to D3.
05. Heard oral arguments advanced by the learned prosecuting counsel. On behalf accused neither written argument is filed.
06. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused has issued following cheques.
Date Cheque Bank Amount
No. (Rs)
22.11.2018 817994 Canara Bank, 6,00,000/
J P Nagar II -
Phase, Bangalore
22.11.2018 817995 Canara Bank, 6,00,000/
J P Nagar II -
Phase, Bangalore
22.11.2018 817998 Canara Bank, 4,50,000/
J P Nagar II -
Phase, Bangalore
22.11.2018 817999 Canara Bank, 4,50,000/
J P Nagar II -
8 C.C. 34661 / 2018
Phase, Bangalore
22.11.2018 818000 Canara Bank, 4,00,000/
J P Nagar II -
Phase, Bangalore
towards the discharge of his lawful
liability of the complainant and
when the said cheque was presented
for encashment, it was returned
unpaid due to shara as "Kindly
contract drawer drawee bank" as per
banker's memo and in-spite of
issuance of demand notice, the
accused has failed to pay the
cheque amount, thereby has
committed the offence punishable
under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Negative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused being his good friend for the last several years and in order to to develop his IT company in the month of June 9 C.C. 34661 / 2018 2017, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs from him on different dates. In order to repay the said hand loan amount the accused has issued disputed 5 cheques towards discharge of his liability. When all the cheques were presented with the banker of Complainant for encashment, they all returned unpaid with a reason 'kindly contact drawer drawee bank'. The Complainant got issued demand notice to the accused , even by receiving the demand notice the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount instead has given reply. Thus, it is sought to punish the accused as per section 138 of NI Act.
09. To bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the legal heir of the Complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence. In his affidavit evidence the Complainant has replicated the averments of the complaint and to corroborate his oral testimony the legal heir of the 10 C.C. 34661 / 2018 Complainant has produced in all 16 documents as per Ex.P1 to P16. Ex.P1 to 5 are the disputed cheques, Ex.P6 to 10 are the bank return memos. Ex.P11 is the demand notice, Ex.P12 is the postal receipt, Ex.P13 & 14 are the DTDC courier receipt and postal acknowledgment, Ex.P15 is the reply notice, Ex.P16 is the notarized copy of the aadhar card of the legal heir of the deceased Complainant.
To disprove the case of the Complainant and also to rebut Legal presumptions which could be drawn in favour of complainant , the accused has got marked 3 documents at Ex.D1 to D3 through PW1 by confrontation. Ex.D1 is the Bank pass book of the accused, Ex.D2 is the cheque folio and two blank cheques, Ex.D3 is the SSLC Marks Card of the accused . The accused has also adduced his oral evidence as DW1. The learned counsels have cross examined their rival witnesses.
10. It is undisputed fact that, during the pendency of the complaint the Complainant by name M Suresh died accordingly the Learned prosecuting counsel has filed 11 C.C. 34661 / 2018 application before this court u/s 252 (2) of Cr.P.C. along with photocopy of death certificate of the Complainant , having considered the same this court has allowed the said application and accordingly the son of deceased Complainant by name Nagarajun S. has been permitted to come on record as legal heir. The Nagarajun S who has come on record as legal heir of the deceased Complainant has produced his notarized copy of aadhar card which is marked as Ex.P16 wherein the father name of the Nagarajun S is appeared as Suresh M and address shown in his aadhar card at Ex.P16 is the same address as shown in the cause title of the complaint. During his cross examination PW1 the legal heir of deceased Complainant has stated that, himself, his mother and two other sisters are the only legal heir of deceased Complainant by name M Suresh. He further stated that, his 2 sisters are married and residing in their matrimonial houses and his mother is alive. It is well settle law that usually all the legal heir of deceased Complainant shall be brought on record. However, if any one of the legal heir is come on record, he 12 C.C. 34661 / 2018 can very well prosecute the complaint. Even during cross examination of PW1 no such material evidence has been culled out to held that, PW1 Nagarajun S is not legal heir of deceased Complainant . Thus I am of the considered opinion that, PW1 is the legal heir of the deceased Complainant . It is well settled law that, in a case where the Complainant is died and legal heir are prosecuting the complaint u/s 138 of NI Act the same principle is applicable in respect of proving the complaint beyond all reasonable doubt as such the legal heir will steps into the shoes of deceased Complainant .
11. Before to evaluate and appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced on records, it is mandatory on this court to find out whether the Complainant has complied the necessary ingredients of section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
12. Looking upon the disputed cheques at Ex.P1 To P5 and return memo at Ex.P6 to P10 and demand notice at Ex.P11 13 C.C. 34661 / 2018 it can be seen that, the disputed cheques were presented to the bank within the period of it s validity for encashment and the demand notice has been issued within 30 days from the date of receiving the bank return memo. The accused has admitting his receiving demand notice and also has issued reply notice at Ex.P15, the present complaint has filed before this court on 31.12.2018. Thus, it can be conclusively held that, the present complaint has been filed before this court only after complying the requirements of section 138 of NI Act.
13. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important provisions and they provides for raising mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of 14 C.C. 34661 / 2018 Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and in the relied judgments of the complainant, a precedent is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required to raise presumption in favour of the the complainant stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The burden or reverse onus shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall prove before the court on preponderance of 15 C.C. 34661 / 2018 probabilities, only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands rebutted.
14. In the instant case on hand as per Ex.P15 the accused has given his reply notice to the demand notice of the Complainant wherein he has disputed the entire case of the Complainant by giving para wise reply interlia contended that there is no iota of truth as alleged in your notice as his client issued those cheques without any consideration amount by your client, thus there is no legal liability or debt of my client to pay to your client. Except this no specific defense is taken in this reply noitce as to how the disputed cheques at Ex.P1 to P5 have passed on to the hand of Complainant . By this defense of the accused in the reply notice he has not disputing that the issuance of cheques at Ex.P1 to P5 from his account and his signatures on Ex.P1(a) to P5(a). Therefore as per the above relied judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court the Legal presumptions would goes in favour of complainant and 16 C.C. 34661 / 2018 that the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the said Legal presumptions.
15. It is well settled that in order to rebut the Legal presumptions the accused shall put forth the probable defense and to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. In the reply notice at Ex.P15 it is the specific defense of the accused in para 5 & 6 contending that, when the accused studied only SSLC how could he develop IT company. To prove the said defense accused himself has entered in the witness box and adduce his oral evidence as DW1 stating that, he do not know the deceased Complainant and he never had borrowed Rs.25 lakhs from the deceased. He further said that, he has not issued disputed cheque to the deceased Complainant . After receiving demand notice he has approached the Complainant and asked him as to how the disputed cheques came to his hands, but he did not get proper answer at that time he warned the Complainant about his lodging the police complaint against him at that time the 17 C.C. 34661 / 2018 Complainant promises to return his cheques, but did not return DW1 has produced his bank account pass book and cheque leaf and also his SSLC marks Card which are marked at Ex.D1 to D3. He testified that since he studied 10th Std. He has no knowledge about the computers. Since he was working in Mohan Info Solutions the bank pass book at Ex.D1 belongs to his salary account and cheque leaf at Ex.D2 pertains to his bank account and in the year 2013 he has left the job of the said company. He has denied about his having any money transaction with M Suresh. The Learned prosecuting counsel has cross examined DW1. During the cross examination of DW1 no such material evidence has been culled out from his mouth to support the case of the Complainant . On the other hand, the Learned defense counsel has conducted marathon cross examination of PW1 and during the said cross examination PW1 stated that, his father had gave disputed amount to the accused on two times in the month of June 2017 which is not pleaded in the complaint as well as evidence of PW1. PW1 stated in his cross examination 18 C.C. 34661 / 2018 that his father received consideration amount of Rs.25 lakhs for the sale of house property under the sale agreement. But, the said sale agreement is not at all produced before the court. Even PW1 has admitted that, at the time of alleged advancing of Rs.25 lakhs no documents were got executed as a security. An amount of Rs.25 lakhs is a huge amount to advance by way of cash without obtaining any security documents. Even PW1 has stated in his cross examination that, his deceased father was income tax payee, but he has not produced before the court any such IT returns of his deceased father. It is stated that, by having old cheques of the accused his father has misused the same and filed this false case against the accused. When the Complainant has not specifically either pleaded in the complaint or deposed in the evidence in details how he has advanced the said amount and from where he has collected such amount, under such circumstances the defense put forth by the accused appears to be probable and believable. Even the Complainant has not spoken before the court how much the income of his deceased 19 C.C. 34661 / 2018 father had by running utensils business. Further as per the evidence of PW1 when his family is in his rented house then the very advancing of huge hand loan of Rs.25 lakhs by way of cash leads doubt in the mind of the court. On the other hand, looking to the cheque leafs produced under Ex.D2 they clearly reveals that this cheque book has been issued to the accused in the year 2011 itself and when the other connecting series of cheque were issued in the year 2015 itself then the issuance of disputed cheque in the year 2018 appears to be doubtful. As per the entry found in Ex.D1 the bank pass book of accused, the said account was operated only till March 2012 meaning thereby from 2012 on wards, the said account become Dormant and inoperative. Under such circumstances, the issuance of disputed cheques at Ex.P1 to P5 to the Complainant in the year 2018 appears to be unbelievable and doubtful. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has raised probable defense and has proved the same on preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the Legal presumptions stands rebutted. On the other 20 C.C. 34661 / 2018 hand, except self service testimony of the PW1 no documentary evidence has been produced by the Complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts that his father has advanced Rs.25 lakhs to the accused by way of cash. Further looking to the marks card of accused at Ex.D1 when he has studied only SSLC, then his plan about to start or develop IT company seems to be false and unbelievable as contended by the Complainant in para No.4 of the complaint. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:
16. In view of the above findings, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of code of criminal procedure, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 21 C.C. 34661 / 2018
The bail bond of accused and surety stands canceled subject to appeal period. {Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of September 2025}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACJM, ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Nagarjun S List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 to 5 Cheques
Ex.P. 1(a) to 5(a) Signatures of the accused
Ex.P. 6 to 10 Bank endorsements
Ex.P. 11 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P. 12 Postal receipt
Ex.P. 13 Courier recept
Ex.P. 14 Postal acknowledgments
22 C.C. 34661 / 2018
Ex.P. 15 Reply notice
Ex. P.16 Notarized copy of aadhar card
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 S Chandru List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Bank pass book of the accused,
Ex.D.2 Cheque folio and two blank
cheques
Ex.D.3 SSLC Marks Card of the
accused
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.