Delhi District Court
Mahavir Mann vs Vijay Solanki on 19 March, 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 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki A. CNR No. : DLNT020100992021 B. Date of Institution : 26.08.2021 C. Name of the complainant : Mahavir Mann R/o H.No. 626, Village Khera Khurd, New Delhi-110082.
D. Name of the accused, his : Vijay Solanki, S/o Raghuvir Singh parentage and address R/o H.No. 370, V.P.O P.O Pooth Kalan, Near Hero Showroom, New Delhi-110086.
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 : 12.03.2026 H. Date of Judgment : 19.03.2026 I. Final Order : Conviction Digitally signed by GAURAV DAHIYA GAURAV Date: DAHIYA 2026.03.19 17:22:10 +0530 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 1 of 17 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 him and the accused for a long time. That, in the last week of March 2022, accused approached along with a common friend namely Mr. Satish Khatri and requested a friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs for two months. That on 01.04.2022, complainant advanced the friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash to the accused. That in discharge of his liability, the accused issued two cheques in question i.e. bearing no. 000063 and 000064, both dated 22.06.2022 for sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Barwala, New Delhi, branch. That the complainant presented the cheques in question through his banker but the said cheques were returned unpaid and dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" as per the return memos dated 27.06.2022.
Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice, dated 19.07.2022 and the accused failed to make the payment of the cheques amount to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the present CC No. 2149/2021 'Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki' was filed.
2. Cognizance was taken and summons were issued against the accused. On summoning, accused entered his appearance and Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 17:22:15 +0530 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 2 of 17 thereafter notice under section 251 CrPC was put to the accused on 22.02.2024.
The Defence
3. Plea of defence was recorded on 22.02.2024 wherein accused stated that he had issued the cheques in question as blank signed security cheques in 2015-2016. He further stated that he did not fill the particulars of the cheques. He further stated that he has already paid Rs 3 lakh in cash to the complainant and Rs. 2 lakh in various small installments through online payment. He further stated that he does not owe any liability towards the complainant.
Thereafter, the accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant and the matter was listed for evidence.
Cross examination of complainant
4. During CE, complainant adopted his pre-summoning evidence affidavit and relied upon the following documents namely :
a) The original cheques are Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex. CW-1/2.
b) Original cheques return memo are Ex.CW-1/3 and Ex. CW-1/4.
c) Copy of legal notice is Ex. CW-1/5.
d) Postal receipts is Ex. CW-1/6.
e) Prooof of delivery of legal notice is Ex. CW-1/7.
f) Certificate U/s 65B of IEA is Ex. CW-1/8.
5. Thereafter, the complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and his deposition in verbatim is "I am working in Delhi police since December 1998. In the year 2010, I Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 CC NI Act 2149/2021 17:22:17 +0530 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 3 of 17 was posted in 1st battalion. I know the accused through my friend namely Satish Khatri. Satish Khatri's in laws are of the same village as of the accused. I know Satish since 1998 as we trained together and he works in Delhi police. I met the accused for the first time in his village in 2010. I do not remember the exact date and month of the said meeting. It is correct that I, Satish Khatri and the accused have not attended any family functions of each other. (Vol. We have attended functions of other common friends). I do not know whether any photographs of me, Satish Khatri and the accused were clicked together in the said functions of the common friends or not. In last week of March 2022, accused approached me for the first time for the loan of Rs. 5 lacs at my home. I do not remember the exact date as to when accused approached me as above mentioned.
Que. Did the accused tell you the reason for which he required the said loan?
Ans. The accused told me that he has suffered some losses in his business and he was under financial hardship. I do not know what kind of business the accused was doing at the that time. (Vol. The accused was operating some factory in Bawana some time before he so approached me.) I paid the loan amount to the accused directly. I arranged the loan amount out of cash in my possession and I had borrowed some amount from my mother. My mother had retired around that time and she had retirement fund available with her in cash. The retirement fund was received by my mother in her bank account. Que. I put to you that since your mother received the retirement fund in her bank account, she must have withdrawn the said Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.03.19 17:22:20 +0530 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 4 of 17 amount from the bank in order to give to you which you lent further to the accused?
Ans. My mother had already withdrawn the fund from the bank for her use before I approached her for any amount. I had asked my mother if she had cash available with her and as the same was available with her, I borrowed it from her and gave it to the accused.
My salary in the year 2022 was around Rs. 75,000/-. I receive my salary in my bank account. I did not withdraw any amount from the bank qua the purpose of giving the loan to the accused. I have two bank accounts, one salary account and one SBI account in my native village. I do not file ITR. (Vol. I am not required to file ITR as tax is already deducted by my employer.) The time period of loan was fixed as two months as the accused assured that he would return the loan in two months.
Que. What was the basis of your belief that accused can return sum of Rs. 5 lacs in two months?
Ans. The accused had told me that he earns around Rs. 2 to 2.5 lacs as monthly rent from godown in his native village. Accused handed over the cheques in question to me on 21.06.2022. The accused had filled all the particulars on the cheques in front of me and then handed it over to me. No meeting took place between me and the accused through Satish Khatri after the dishonor of the cheques. It is wrong to suggest that Satish Khatri is not a common friend of accused and I. It is wrong to suggest that Satish Khatri has been falsely mentioned as a witness in this case. It is wrong to suggest that Satish Khatri, accused and I are not friends and due to this reason we do not have any photographs together. It is wrong to suggest that I gave loan of Rs.Digitally signed by GAURAV
CC NI Act 2149/2021 GAURAV DAHIYA
Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki DAHIYA Date: Page 5 of 17
2026.03.19
17:22:22 +0530
5 lacs to the accused in year 2015 or 2016. It is wrong to suggest that the cheques in question were given in the year 2015 or 2016.
It is wrong to suggest that I have misused the blank signed cheques of the accused despite refund of loan of Rs. 5 lacs by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that despite demand of the accused, I did not return the cheques in question or that I told him that the said cheques have been misplaced by me. It is wrong to suggest that due to the falling out of friendly relation with the accused, I have misused the cheques in question. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed a false complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. " No other witness was examined by the complainant and CE was closed.
6. The memorandum of statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 05.03.2025 wherein accused stated that he knows the complainant since 2010, however, Satish Khatri is not his friend and he did not meet the complainant through him. He further stated that he did not approach the complainant for loan in March 2022. Infact, he had taken loan of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant way back in the year 2015 or 2016. He further stated that he had paid Rs. 01 lac to the complainant in the year 2016 or 2017 itself after he sold his factory. He further stated that in the year 2018, he paid Rs. 02 lac after borrowing the same from his sister. He further stated that the complainant kept on pressurizing him to return the balance payment, however, he was facing financial hardship. He further stated that he used to pay small sums of around 15,000/- or 20,000/- to the complainant through money transfers but the complainant has not disclosed these payment. He further stated that some amount may be Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.03.19 17:22:24 +0530 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 6 of 17 due but he does not owe the cheque amount. He further stated that the complainant has misused his security cheques.
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for defence evidence and accused was examined in chief and his deposition in verbatim is "I have received Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant in the year 2015-
016. Against the same amount I had given two security cheques to the complainant in the year 2015- 2016. I had paid Rs. 1 lac in cash to the complainant in the year 2017 and paid Rs. 2 lac in cash in the year 2018 to the complainant. Remaining payment of Rs. 2 lacs, I have paid in small installments to the complainant in cyber cafe. I asked to the complainant to return my security cheques but complainant did not return my security cheques and made many excuses like I have lost security cheques. The security cheques were issued in the year 2015-2016 and in the year 2022 when it is alleged that I had issued the security cheques, I had got issued a new cheque book as previous cheque book containing the security cheques got exhausted prior to 2022 only. I had never met complainant after COVID period. This is a false case filed against me by the complainant. I do not owe any liability towards the complainant."
Thereafter, the accused was cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant and his deposition in verbatim is "I have no documentary proof regarding receiving of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant in the year 2015-2016. (Vol. It was a cash transaction). It is wrong to suggest that no such loan was taken by me from the complainant and therefore I do not have any proof regarding the same. I do not have any documentary proof regarding repayment of Rs. 1 lac in the year 2017 and Rs. 2 lacs in Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 CC NI Act 2149/2021 17:22:26 +0530 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 7 of 17 they year 2018. It is wrong to suggest that no such loan was taken by me from the complainant and therefore I do not have any proof regarding the repayment of any partial amount to the complainant. I do not have any documentary proof regarding repayment of any amount to the complainant through cyber cafe. It is wrong to suggest that no such loan was taken by me from the complainant and therefore I do not have any proof regarding the repayment of any partial amount to the complainant through cyber cafe. I had never raised any complaint against the complainant for not returning my security cheque. (Vol. We were in friendly terms and therefore no such complaint was raised). It is wrong to suggest that no such loan was taken by me from the complainant and I am deposing falsely in the Court to evade my liability qua the cheque in question "
One more witness was examined in defence who is bank witness and his deposition in verbatim is "I am the summoned witness today. I am currently posted as Branch Sales Manager, HDFC Bank, Barwala Branch, Delhi. I have brought the bank statements of Mr. Vijay Solanki of account bearing no. 06771000033270 of period 01.01.2016 to 14.01.2026. The statement runs into 579 pages, which is now Ex. DW-2/A. I have also brought the dates of issuance of cheques book of above said account. Which is now Ex. DW-2/B. . I have also produced my authorisation letter dated 15.01.2026 which is now Ex. DW-2/C." Thereafter his cross- examination was disallowed U/s 139 IEA as the witness was merely a summoned witness producing the record.
Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and the matter was listed Digitally for final arguments.
signed by
GAURAV
GAURAV DAHIYA
DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19
17:22:29
CC NI Act 2149/2021 +0530
Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 8 of 17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
8. 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 two months in lieu of which cheques in question were given by the accused. It was further argued that dishonourment of cheques, 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.
09. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of accused that there are several discrepancies in the case of the complainant which are sufficient enough to rebut the presumption and the complainant on his part has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Law
10. 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.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 17:22:31 +0530 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 9 of 17
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.
Appreciation of Evidence and Application of the law to the facts of present case
(i) Issuing of Cheque
11. The first ingredient of offence u/s 138 N.I.Act which has to be established by the complainant is that the cheques in dispute were drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him with his banker and were given to the complainant. The accused admitted in his plea of defence as well as in his examination in chief during defence evidence that the cheques in question were issued by him for security purposes. Thus, it has been established that the cheques in dispute were drawn by the accused on his account maintained by him with his banker. Also, the defence of the accused that the name of the payee and date in the said cheques were not filled by him is not tenable because it is a settled law that Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA Date:
CC NI Act 2149/2021 DAHIYA 2026.03.19
17:22:34
Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki +0530
Page 10 of 17
it is not necessary that all the columns or particulars in the cheque must be filled by the drawer himself. If signature on the cheque is admitted, the same will be sufficient. The concept of blank signed cheque is virtually immaterial in view of judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi viz. Ravi Chopra Vs. State And Anr. 2008 (2) JCC (NI) 169 and Vijender Singh Vs M/s Eicher Motors Limited & anr. Crl. M.C.No. 1454/2011 decided on 05.05.2011.
(ii) Presentment and Dishonour of Cheque(s)
12. The next ingredient to be proved by the complainant is that when the cheque in dispute was presented for encashment, it was returned by the bank unpaid. Complainant as CW-1 has deposed in his affidavit that cheques in dispute were presented for encashment but the same were dishonored due to the reason of "Funds Insufficient". The original returning memos have also been produced for the same and they have not been disputed by the accused. Therefore, the factum of presentment of cheques within period of validity and the factum of dishonor stands established.
(iii) Legal Demand Notice
13. The accused in his plea of defence as well as in his statement U/s 313 CrPC admitted that he has received the legal demand notice. Admittedly, accused did not make the payment of cheque amount within stipulated period after receipt of the demand notice and therefore cause of action against the accused arose and the present complaint was filed.
Digitally signed by GAURAV DAHIYA GAURAV Date:
DAHIYA 2026.03.19
17:22:36
+0530
CC NI Act 2149/2021
Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 11 of 17
(iv) Legally Enforceable Debt or other Liability- Presumption
14. Once the fundamental ingredients which give rise to cause of action u/s 138 N.I.Act have been established, a mandatory presumption u/s 139 of N.I.Act is effected in favour of complainant and it also extends to the existence of legally enforceable liability itself.
15. A three judgments bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. S.Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 has held that:
"In the light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent-claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable dept or liability. To the extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct."
16. Since in the present case, the complainant has successfully established that the cheques in dispute were issued by the accused and the same got dishonored and the accused failed to make the payment even after service of statutory notice, a presumption u/s 139 N.I.Act is drawn in favour of the complainant to the effect that the cheque in dispute was issued by the accused for a legally enforceable debt.
(v) Rebuttal of Presumption by Accused
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets decided on 16.12.2008 has further held :- Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 17:22:39 +0530 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 12 of 17 To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected of to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in criminal trial.
The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the consideration and which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, Digitally CC NI Act 2149/2021 signed by GAURAV Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:Page 13 of 17
2026.03.19 17:22:41 +0530 for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Section 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue.
18. The case of the complainant is that due to good friendly relationship with the accused through another common friend for a lot of years, he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash. There is no written agreement concerning the transaction and also there is no independent witness to the transaction. The complainant has placed reliance on the cheques-in question and its dishonour by the bank.
19 On the other hand, the defence of the accused throughout the proceedings has been that he had taken a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant in the year 2016, and the said loan was repaid by him. It is his case that he had given Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and Rs. 2,00,000/- in Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 CC NI Act 2149/2021 17:22:44 +0530 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 14 of 17 various small installments through online payment and that the cheques in question were given as security in the year 2015-16.
20 Considering the material available on record and arguments addressed by both the parties, this court is of the view that the accused has failed to raise any probable defence and the statutory presumptions have not been rebutted due to the following reasons :
20.1 It was argued on behalf of the accused that there was no transaction between the parties between 2020-2022 and neither any cash was given by the complainant nor any cheques were given by the accused in repayment of any loan. In this regard, it is the case of the accused that the cheques were given for a transaction in the year 2015-2016 and a bank witness was summoned to produce the bank account statement of the accused. It was argued that there are several entries in the bank account statement which show that the cheques of the same series were already exhausted by 2019 itself and new cheque-book was issued in favour of the accused thereafter.
20.2 To counter the said narrative of the accused, it was argued on behalf of complainant that the cheques were given by the accused himself in the year 2022 and in any case the fact of issuance of a new cheque-book in favour of the accused in the year 2022 would not come into the knowledge of the complainant without the accused disclosing him so.
20.3 Having considered the arguments on the point, this court is of the view that merely because other cheques of the same series were exhausted in the year 2019 itself and a new cheque-book had been issued in favour of the accused, it does not prove in itself that Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA CC NI Act 2149/2021 Date:
DAHIYA 2026.03.19 17:22:46 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki +0530 Page 15 of 17 the cheques were given in the year 2015-2016. The complainant had no means to verify that a new cheque-book has been issued to the accused and some outdated cheques are being given by him. The accused was also required to show something more than this to prove this point.
20.4 The accused on his part has not summoned any independent witness to show that he was having any loan transaction with the complainant in the year 2015-2016. He has not furnished any proof in support of partial repayment in cash and also in support of several installments made through cyber Cafe as alleged by him.
20.5 It was also argued on behalf of the accused that even the complainant has not produced any independent witness in support of his averments. In this regard, it is a settled law that once statutory presumption is raised against the accused, then it is for the accused to rebut those presumptions by raising a probable defence. Thus, the burden was on the accused to bring something on record to dispute the story of the complainant.
20.6 On his part, the complainant has remained consistent throughout his cross-examination. He has fully supported the averments made by him in the complaint and has denied suggestions given to the contrary. Moreover, there is no doubt about the financial capacity of the complainant as the accused has himself alleged having availed a loan for the same amount in the year 2015-2016.
21 In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the defence as advanced by the accused is a sham defence and the accused has failed to point out any improbability in Digitally signed by CC NI Act 2149/2021 GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki DAHIYA Date:
2026.03.19 Page 16 of 17 17:22:49 +0530 the case of the complainant. In my opinion, the accused has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of legal liability even on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Thus, the complainant has, with the aid of, inter alia, evidence led and the presumption of liability under Section 118 r/w Section 139 NI Act, in his favour, successfully proved the basic ingredients of offence under Section 139 of NI Act.
CONCLUSION
22. As such, the Court is of the view that accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption drawn in favour of the complainant.
23. I accordingly return a finding of guilt against the accused Vijay Solanki..
24. The accused Vijay Solanki is hereby convicted for the offence as punishable under Section 138 N.I.Act, 1881.
25. This judgment contains 17 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
26. 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 on Day ofDigitally 19.03.2026.
signed by GAURAV GAURAV DAHIYA DAHIYA Date: 2026.03.19 17:22:55 +0530 (GAURAV DAHIYA) JMFC/NI ACT COURT NORTHDISTRICT,ROHINI 19.03.2026 CC NI Act 2149/2021 Mahavir Mann Vs. Vijay Solanki Page 17 of 17