Delhi District Court
Deepak Goyal vs Yatendra Sharma on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWNA RATTAN
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) - 10
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 27.08.2018
Date of Reserving Judgment : 07.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2026
In the matter of:
Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma
1. Regn. No. of Case : CC 28581/2018
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW020321322018
3. Name of complainant : Sh. Deepak Goyal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Bharose Goyal
R/o C-157, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
4. Name of accused : Sh. Yatendra Sharma
R/o Pvt. No. 303, E-9, Om Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
5. Offence complained of : Under Section 138 NI Act
6. Offence charged under Section : 138 NI Act
7. Plea of accused person : Not guilty.
8. Final Order : CONVICTED
Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma BHAWNA RATTAN
Date:
page 1 of 15
RATTAN 2026.04.04
16:22:33
+0530
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the complaint filed by the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT
1. The complainant is running business of property dealing in the name and style of M/s Aggarwal Properties. Accused approached the complainant as he intended to buy a property/flat. The deal/purchase of property/flat was materialised and the sale deed was executed in favour of the accused.
2. That after the purchase of the property/flat the accused approached the complainant and requested for the renovation and interior work of the said flat. The complainant agreed to the same and get the work done for the accused.
3. Thereafter on completion of the work, the accused in discharge of his part liability issued the cheque i.e. cheque in question to the complainant with assurance that the same will be honoured on its presentation. However, when the complainant presented the said cheque, it got dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer."
4. The complainant immediately, then tried to informed the accused about the said fact but the accused did not respond. The complainant when was left with no other option, send a legal demand notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque in question. But despite the service Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 16:22:39 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma +0530 page 2 of 15 of the legal demand notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Thus, the present complaint.
PRE SUMMONING EVIDENCE
5. At the stage of pre-summoning evidence, the complainant relied upon the following documents:
i. Cheque in question Ex CW1/1. ii. Cheque returning memo Ex CW1/2. iii. Outward return cheque advance Ex CW1/3. iv. Copy of legal demand notice Ex CW1/4. v. Speed post receipts Ex CW1/5(colly). vi. Courier receipts Ex CW1/6(colly). vii. Returned speed post envelope Ex CW1/7. viii. Tracking report Ex CW1/8(colly).
6. After the PSE is led, the summoning of the accused is done if there is sufficient material on record in terms of the ingredients of the offence. i.e. once the complaint prima facie reveals that there is sufficient material on record to summon the accused, then the accused is summoned. The summoning order was done on 27.08.2018.
APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. For securing the appearance of the accused, summons issued and the accused entered into appearance and notice was framed.
Digitally signed by BHAWNABHAWNA RATTAN Date:
RATTAN 2026.04.04 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma page 3 of 15 16:22:44 +0530 NOTICE FRAMING
8. Notice under section 251 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) was framed on 01.06.2019 and the same was read over and explained to the accused and he was asked to make his plea of defence to which he stated;
The cheque in question was given as security cheque. Cash payment has already been made by me of the cheque amount. I have no liability towards the complainant.
9. Further the accused admitted that the cheque bears his signatures. Qua legal demand notice, the accused declined that he had received it.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
10.To prove his case the complainant got himself examined as CW-1, and reiterated the version of the complaint and in his examination in chief adopted his pre-summoning evidence affidavit Ex CW1/A as post summoning evidence and relied upon all the documents exhibited at the stage of pre-summoning evidence.
STAGE OF CROSS EXAMINATION
11. For the purpose of cross examination, it is pertinent to mention the provision under section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments, Act 1881;
The court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.
Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 16:22:48 +0530 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma page 4 of 15
12. In the present matter, the application under section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the Ld. counsel for the accused. The court after considering the object and purpose of the application, allowed the application and granted an opportunity to the accused to cross examine the complainant and the matter then fixed for the complainant evidence.
13.Thereafter the complainant i.e. CW1 examined in chief on 11.03.2020 and partially cross examined. Subsequently, on 18.112022, CW1 was further cross examined and discharged. On the very same day, the complainant closed his evidence vide separate statement to that effect.
RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 of CrPC
14. At the stage of recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of CrPC all the incriminating circumstances/evidences are put to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to explain the same. The statement of the accused was recorded on 18.11.2022.
15.The accused at the time of recording of statement under section 313 of CrPC, stated as follows;
I have never received any legal demand notice from the complainant as all the legal demand notice were sent to my old office address. The information regarding this was given to me by my company CA and he delivered the legal demand notice to me. The cheque in question was given to the brother of the complainant Ankit Goyal for dues against me as a blank signed security cheque. The said transaction was for purchase of flat by Ankit Goyal in which the total loan amount was Rs 14 lakhs and purchasing amount was Rs 17 lakhs. I had to Digitally signed by BHAWNA RATTAN BHAWNA Date:
RATTAN 2026.04.04 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma 16:22:52 +0530 page 5 of 15 pay Rs 3 lakhs to Ankit Goyal and I have paid Rs 50,000/- via RTGS to him and Rs 11,000 cash was given as bayana. Rs 90,000/- in cash was given just prior to registry and rest of the payment was taken early morning on the date of the registry. On the day of registry, Rs 11 lakhs were directly given by the bank and Rs 3 lakhs were left for which I had issued the present cheque in dispute to Mr Ankit Goyal. Thereafter, I have paid the remaining Rs 3 lakhs in cash to Ankit Goyal and I have also made video of the delivery of cash to the employee of Ankit Goyal.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
16. At the time of recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of CrPC, the accused wished to lead the defence evidence (DE) and accordingly moved an application under section 315 of CrPC which was allowed and accused examined himself as DW1 in DE.
17.DW1 was examined in chief on 09.08.2024. Thereafter DW1 was cross examined on 04.06.2025, 12.07.2025, 06.12.2025 and was discharged. The accused did not examine any other witness in DE and vide separate statement closed his DE.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
18.In the final arguments, the complainant reiterated his entire case, that complainant had done some renovation and interior work in the flat of the accused. Thus, the accused in part discharge of his liability issued the cheque in question. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it got dishonoured. Thereafter, the legal demand notice was sent to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque. The accused Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 16:22:57 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma +0530 page 6 of 15 despite the receipt of the legal demand notice did not make any payment. Thus, the present case.
19.While on the other hand, accused had refuted all the claims of the complainant. Accused had denied his liability towards the complainant specifically argued that he has already paid the entire amount to the complainant. It was further argued on the behalf of the accused that there is no existing liability of the accused towards the complainant and this is false case filed against him.
20.Written submissions filed only on behalf of the accused which are duly perused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. Under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881(hereinafter referred as Act), to held any person liable for the offence the following are the essential ingredients:
a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
and Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 16:23:01 +0530 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma page 7 of 15
c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
22. In the present matter, the cheque in question (cheque) is dated 12.06.2018 and the same when presented for encashment was dishonoured vide return memo dated 14.06.2018 which means the same was presented within the statutory period of three months from the date on which it was drawn. Thereafter the complainant sent the legal demand notice dated 02.07.2018 to the accused for the demand of the payment of the cheque amount and the same was sent on 05.07.2018 i.e. within statutory period of thirty days from the receipt of the information received regarding the dishonour of cheque.
23. The accused at the time of recording of statement under section 313 of CrPC had stated that he did not receive the legal demand notice and the address mentioned on the legal demand notice is address of his previous work place. Accused further stated that the CA of the company where he previously worked had deliver him the legal demand notice. Hence it can be presumed that the accused received the legal demand notice but despite the receipt of the same, the accused failed to make the payment. Hence the third ingredient is also established by the complainant.
24. Now, further in section 138 of the act, if the accused admits the fact that he has signed the cheque in question and executed in the favour of the complainant, then the presumption under section 139 of the act, r/w section 118(a) of the act, arises.
Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 16:23:06 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma +0530 page 8 of 15 Section 139 Presumption in favour of holder;
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Section 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments;
(a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
25. Now, as per the mandate of the law, when the accused admits that he signed the cheque, then it is presumed that the same was given for a legally enforceable debt or other liability and presumption of the same lies in the favour of the complainant and to rebut the same presumption the burden of proof lies on the accused. Now, in the present case, the accused though had admitted his signatures on the cheque but disputed his liability towards the complainant specifically stating that all the dues are cleared by the accused.
26.However, nonetheless the accused had disputed his liability, but since the accused has admitted that the cheque bear his signatures, the presumption will be raised and lie in the favour of the complainant and the burden accordingly, shifts to the accused to discharge the said presumption. The accused can discharge the same, by either shaking the credit of the complainant's case or by bringing on record his own evidence which must be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption by preponderance of probabilities. Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma page 9 of 15 2026.04.04 16:23:10 +0530
27. In the present matter, during the examination in chief, the complainant i.e. CW1, reiterated his case as CW1 and adopted the pre-summoning evidence affidavit Ex CW1/A in the post summoning evidence as examination in chief and relied upon all the documents tendered at the stage of pre summoning evidence.
28.Now since the burden has already been shifted to the accused after the presumption, the stage of cross examination of the complainant is first opportunity to shift the onus of proof back onto the complainant.
29.During the cross examination, CW1 inter alia stated that, "The accused approached me immediately after purchase of flat for its renovation and interiors. I had visited the flat after the accused approached me for renovation. The bathroom fittings were not complete when I visited the flat. Neither the flat was whitewashed nor painted. No wooden work has been done."
30.Now, categorically this is the case of the complainant that he was engaged by the accused to do some interior and renovation work in the flat which was purchased by the accused and the cheque in question was given by the accused towards the amount for the work (interior and renovation) done by the complainant. While on the other side, the claim of the complainant is disputed by the accused on the grounds that the cheque in question was not given by the accused in discharge of the alleged/claimed liability but the cheque was given as security for the remaining amount/pending of the purchase amount.
31.Thus, at this stage, it is germane to mention the examination in chief of DW1, will reproduce the relevant portions;
Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma 16:23:15 +0530 page 10 of 15 .......................
"The complainant informed me that the house has to be painted and some minor improvements have to be done, for which the accused to pay the remaining Rs 3 lakh in cash to complainant."
Hence, it is duly deposed by the accused himself that there was some renovation work to be done in the flat for which the amount of Rs 3 lakh was to be given to the complainant.
32.Thereafter in cross examination, DW1 stated, will reproduce the relevant portions;
"All the interior work was done by builder Vijay Bansal in the aforesaid flat before purchasing the flat. The above said flat was fully ready as per sample flat shown before entering into the bayana agreement dated 01.01.2018 Ex CW1/X-1. It is correct that there was no scope of minor improvements/renovation to be done in the flat."
33.Also, in further cross examination dated 12.07.2025 DW1 stated, will reproduce relevant portions;
"I again paid Rs 1,23,000/- in cash to Ankit Goyal before registry for the purpose of paint/renovation etc. of flat."
Now, there are the material contradictions between testimonies of the accused/DW1 made at different stages, which undoubtedly casts doubt on the credibility of the witness/DW1.
34.Majorly the defence of the accused is that no renovation work was pending or ever done by the complainant in the flat which was purchased by the accused and the cheque in question was given as blank signed Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma 2026.04.04 16:23:19 page 11 of 15 +0530 security cheque to Sh. Ankit Goyal property dealer who materialised the deal/sale-purchase of the flat for the remaining amount, towards the pending amount out of the total consideration of Rs 17 lakhs, for which the flat was purchased.
35.Specifically, the accused has taken a line of defence that, he has purchased one flat from builder Sh. Vijay Bansal through Sh. Ankit Goyal (property dealer) and in the said deal, Rs 3 lakhs were given as bayana during the time of executing agreement to sell and for remaining 14 lakhs he had applied for loan from the bank/NBFC. Thereafter out of those 14 lakhs, 11 lakhs were transferred by the bank/NBFC directly into the account of builder Sh. Vijay Bansal and the remaining 3 lakhs, transferred into his account and thus the cheque in question was given by the accused as security towards the remaining amount of Rs 3,00,000/- to Sh. Ankit Goyal.
36.Accordingly, the accused paid an amount of Rs 2,98,000/- (after some deduction towards bank charges) in cash to one Sh. Sourav Ji, stated to be the employee of builder Sh. Vijay Bansal. Now in order to fortify his contention, the accused has placed on record the screen shot of the Whats app conversation, showing the acknowledgment of the receipt of the payment by one Sourav ji and the same is marked as Ex DW1/2 (colly). This is further accompanied by certificate under section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the whatsapp chat has neither shown the contact number of Sourav ji nor affidavit filed to an effect, testifying the number of Sourav ji.
37.Even for the sake of arguments if it has to be believed that the accused has made payment of Rs 3,00,000/- (Rs 2,98,000/-) to one Sourav ji, stated to be the employee of builder Vijay Bansal, then the said Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma Date:
RATTAN 2026.04.04 page 12 of 15
16:23:23
+0530
transaction has nothing to do with the transaction which the accused undertook with the complainant.
38.Further, the accused has also placed on record one audio recording Ex DW1/3 along with certificate under section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove that he has given instructions to his bank to stop the payment of the cheque in question after he has made payment to the employee of the builder. It is thus pertinent to reproduce the testimony of DW1, dated 09.08.2024;
"On being asked about the cheque in question, Suresh Kumar made some excuses. On the same day itself, I called the bank and stopped payment of the cheque in question."
39.Now, the accused has not specifically answered what excuses Suresh Kumar (employee of builder Vijay Bansal, who collected the payment in cash from the accused) made. Further it is to be noted that the accused has furnished on record the Whats app chat conversation and also one video recording in order to show that he made a payment of Rs 2,98,000/- to the employee of builder Vijay Bansal. However, the accused has not given the sufficient explanation that, what excuses Suresh Kumar made, or why did the accused not asked in advance to builder Vijay Bansal, to return the cheque if some payment was to be made by the accused towards the cheque in question. The absence of explanation only strengthens the case of the complainant in the light of the presumption under the law.
40.Notably, the testimony of the accused revolves around the fulcrum of his dealing with the builder Vijay Bansal from whom the flat was purchased and nothing adequate qua the claim of the complainant has been put Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma 2026.04.04 16:23:28 page 13 of 15 +0530 forward by the accused, which could have been suffice to discharge the burden of proof under the law of presumption or shifted the burden of proof back to the complainant.
41.Undoubtedly, when the burden is on the accused, he has to bring on record such evidence to prove that the consideration and debt either not existed or the non-existence is so probable that prudent man under the circumstances of the case, believe that the same did not exist.
42. It is worth mentioning, the accused has not brought on record any such probable defence in order to prove that the cheque in question was not issued for a legal liability or was not for the liability as claimed by the complainant.
43.Therefore, at this stage, it can be said that then, it will be utter disregard to the established principle of law, if the court only relies on the oral explanation or answer given by the accused during notice framing, recording of the statement and the submissions made at the time of final arguments, when it is otherwise devoid of any clinching documentary evidence to concrete the same. The version of the accused, in the absence of any credible evidence, cannot be taken as gospel truth for the purpose of discharging his burden even by preponderance of probabilities.
44. Hence, considering the weight of the attending circumstances viz, the consistency in the prosecution story, and the failure of the accused to put forth any reasonable and believable defence, admission of the accused that signature on the cheque in question belongs to him and the fact that the accused has not proved his defence to cause the probabilities to lie in Digitally signed by BHAWNA BHAWNA RATTAN RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04 16:23:32 +0530 CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma page 14 of 15 his favour, the essential elements of section 138 of the Act stands attracted.
45. Finally, having considered the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant as spelled under section 139 of the Act. The law as laid down under section 138 of the Act is made out against the accused. The weight of the evidence adduced by the complainant to prove his case against the accused is sufficient enough to impute criminality on the accused. Complainant has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of section 138 of the Act.
46.Therefore, accused Yatendra Sharma is held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
47. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence separately.
48. Let the copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in Open Court BHAWNA
BHAWNA
RATTAN
on 4th day of April, 2026 RATTAN Date:
2026.04.04
16:23:37
+0530
(Bhawna Rattan)
Judicial Magistrate First Class
(NI Act)-10; South West
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
04.04.2026
CC No. 28581/2018 Deepak Goyal Vs. Yatendra Sharma page 15 of 15