Delhi District Court
Deep Parikh vs M/S Shubham Agencies on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA/318/2024
DLST010096192024 Deep Parikh Vs. Manju Jain
CA/319/2024
DLST010096182024 Deep Parikh Vs. Manju Jain
CA/320/2024
DLST010096252024 Deep Parikh Vs. Manju Jain
Deep Parikh
D/o Late Sh. Dharma Pal Verma
W/o Sh. Rahul Parikh
R/o R-4, Menakshi Garden,
New Delhi - 110018 ... Appellant / Convict
Versus
M/s V.K. Jain & Company
Through Mrs. Manju Jain
W/o Late Mr. V.K. Jain
R/o T-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi ... Respondent / Complainant
_________________ X ________________ X _____________
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain
CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024,
Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Page 1 of 41
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:48:54
+0530
CA/321/2024
DLST010096222024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA/322/2024
DLST010095992024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA/323/2024
DLST010095982024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA/324/2024
DLST010096142024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA/329/2024
DLST010096162024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Subham Agencies
CA/339/2024
DLST010096752024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain
CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024,
Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company
Page 2 of 41
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:49:00
+0530
CA/340/2024
DLST010096772024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
Deep Parikh
D/o Late Sh. Dharma Pal Verma
W/o Sh. Rahul Parikh
R/o R-4, Menakshi Garden,
New Delhi - 110018 ... Appellant / Convict
Versus
M/s Shubham Agencies
Through Mrs. Manju Jain
W/o Late Mr. V.K. Jain
R/o T-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi ... Respondent / Complainant
_________________ X ________________ X _____________
CA/325/2024
DLST010096152024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/326/2024
DLST010096172024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain
CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024,
Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally
signed by
Purshotam Page 3 of 41
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:49:04
+0530
CA/327/2024
DLST010096212024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/328/2024
DLST010096202024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/330/2024
DLST010095822024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/331/2024
DLST010095812024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/332/2024
DLST010095762024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/333/2024
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain
CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024,
Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Page 4 of 41
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:49:09
+0530
DLST010095802024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/334/2024
DLST010095792024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/335/2024
DLST010095752024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
CA/336/2024
DLST010096242024 Deep Parikh Vs. M/S V K JAIN AND CO.
Deep Parikh
D/o Late Sh. Dharma Pal Verma
W/o Sh. Rahul Parikh
R/o R-4, Menakshi Garden,
New Delhi - 110018 ... Appellant / Convict
Versus
M/s V.K. Jain & Company
Through Mrs. Manju Jain
W/o Late Mr. V.K. Jain
R/o T-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi ... Respondent / Complainant
_________________ X ________________ X _____________
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain
CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies
CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024,
Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company
Digitally
signed by
Page 5 of 41
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:49:14
+0530
Versus
Date of filing : 22.08.2024
Date of arguments : 16.03.2026
Date of Order : 25.03.2026
_________________x___________________x______________
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide 21 appeals filed by the appellant/convict under Section 415 of BNSS arising out of respective impugned 21 judgments of conviction dated 06.05.2024 and orders on sentence dated 18.07.2024, passed in 21 separate cases U/s 138 NI Act, which are detailed hereunder :-
Sl. CA No. CT No. Cheque No. Cheque Cheque Return Reason for Legal Sentence (Fine No NI Act and Drawn Date Amount Memo Date dishonor Notice date payable to Case on (In Rs.) complainant as compensation within 30 days of order) Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain
1. 318/24 3115/ 566246 25.02.2014 21,19,150/- 11.03.2014 Funds 31.03.2014 Rs. 84,76,600/-
2018 566247 25.03.2014 21,19,150/- 25.03.2014 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
2. 319/24 465419 / 566248 25.04.2014 21,19,150/- 05.05.2014 Funds 03.06.2014 Wrongly 2016 Insufficient mentioned in sentence order as Cheque no.
280048 dated 31.01.2014 of Rs.
7,92,63,631/- and sentenced for Rs.
15,85,27,262/-
IDSI- 3 Months CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Digitally Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page 6 of 41 Pathak Date: 2026.03.25 16:49:20 +0530
3. 320/24 463485 / 566248 25.04.2014 21,19,150/- 05.05.2014 Funds 03.06.2014 Rs. 42,38,300/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
Deep Parikh vs. Shubham Agencies
4. 321/24 464114 / 814241 31.10.2013 1,00,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs.2,00,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
5. 322/24 464117 / 814248 31.10.2013 50,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs.1,00,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
6. 323/24 464115 / 814240 31.10.2013 1,00,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs.2,00,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
7. 324/24 464108 / 814247 31.10.2013 51,30,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs.1,02,60,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
8. 329/24 464118 / 814260 31.10.2013 41,80,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs. 83,60,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
9. 339/24 463646 / 814259 31.10.2013 21,19,150/- 21.01.2014 Funds 28.01.2014 Rs. 2,54,29,800/-
2016 814252 31.10.2013 each Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
844527 31.10.2013 (in total Rs.
844382 25.10.2013 21,19,150/-)
814253 31.10.2013
814257 31.10.2013
10. 340/24 463829 / 814242 31.10.2013 1,70,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs. 3,40,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain & Company
11. 325/24 463834 / 814239 31.10.2013 1,00,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs.2,00,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
12. 326/24 463645/ 814251, 31.10.2013 21,19,150/- 21.01.2014 Funds 28.01.2014 Rs.5,50,97,900/-
2016 814250, each Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
814254, (in total Rs.
814236, 2,75,48,950/-
814237, )
814256,
814235,
814233,
814249
844528 30.11.2013
844383 25.11.2013
566243 25.11.2013
566244 25.12.2013
13. 327/24 463893 / 814243 31.10.2013 21,19,150/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs. 60,00,000/-
2016 each Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
(in total Rs.
2,75,48,950/-
)30,00,000/-
14. 328/24 464116 / 814245 31.10.2013 50,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 15.02.2014 Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
Purshotam
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain Pathak
CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Date: 2026.03.25 16:49:25 +0530 Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 7 of 41
15. 330/24 463833 / 814262 31.10.2013 48,20,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs. 96,40,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
16. 331/24 463835 / 814238 31.10.2013 1,00,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs.2,00,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
17. 332/24 464336 / 566245 25.01.2014 21,19,150/- 17.02.2014 Funds 06.03.2014 Rs.21,19,150/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
18. 333/24 463892 / 814244 31.10.2013 37,70,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs.75,40,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
19. 334/24 464120/ 814258 31.10.2013 15,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs. 30,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
20. 335/24 463836 / 814263 31.10.2013 10,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs.20,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
21. 336/24 463796 / 814261 31.10.2013 15,00,000/- 22.01.2014 Funds 14.02.2014 Rs. 30,00,000/-
2016 Insufficient IDSI- 3 Months
2. The above tabular description is a brief of the complaint cases against which corresponding appeals have been filed by the appellant/convict detailing their case numbers, cheque numbers, date of dishonor/Legal notice/ return memos, amount involved, reason for dishonor and sentence awarded in each case etc. The point of dispute between the parties pertains to common issue of loan allegedly given by Sh. V.K. Jain, deceased husband of respondent Ms. Manju Jain to the convict company, through banking channel, however, the cheques issued in discharge of liability got dishonored for reasons 'funds insufficient'. In all the 21 appeals, parties are common persons, between whom multiple cases U/s 138 NI Act were decided by the Ld. Trial Court. Hence, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to dispose off all the 21 appeals vide common order. All the appeals have been CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies Digitally signed by CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Pathak Date:
Page 8 of 41 2026.03.2516:49:30 +0530 filed well within their limitation period i.e. within 30 days of date of sentence.
3. Brief facts of the cases as per complaints U/s 138 NI Act are that Sh. V.K. Jain was the Proprietor of M/s V.K. Jain and Company, which company financed / advanced loan of crores of rupees to convict company. On the other hand, appellant/convict no. 1 company M/s Fucon Technologies Ltd. is engaged in various business activities including automobiles having Sh. Rahul Parikh as its Managing Director, Ms. Deep Parikh and Ms. Gurmeet Verma as its Directors. During trial of the case, complainant V.K. Jain expired and his wife Ms. Manju Jain was impleaded at his place who proceeded with the trial. During trial, appellant/convict Ms. Deep Parikh along with Ms. Gurmeet Verma moved applications seeking their discharge from the case on the ground that they are neither the signatory of the cheques in question nor responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused company. However, vide order dated 23.08.2014, Ld. Trial Court dismissed their applications. Aggrieved thereof, Gurmeet Verma and appellant Deep Parikh filed 23 revision petitions and during hearing thereon, Ld. Appellate Court set aside the order dated 23.08.2014 and remanded back the order it being non-speaking order.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:49:36
+0530
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 9 of 41
4. After remand back of the order, Ld. Trial Court re-heard the arguments of the parties and vide order dated 23.01.2015 discharged Ms. Gurmeet Verma from the case U/s 138 NI Act. However, Ld. Trial Court directed to proceed against Ms. Deep Parikh. Aggrieved of the order dated 23.01.2015, appellant/convict Deep Parikh preferred 42 separate revision petitions seeking her discharge, however, the same were again dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 05.07.2017, thereby holding that appellant Deep Parikh to be tried as accused in the case. During further trial, accused Rahul Parikh stopped appearing before the Ld. Trial Court despite issuance of warrants, process U/s 82 Cr.P.C and accordingly, he was declared as 'Absconder' vide order dated 11.09.2018. It may be mentioned that appellant/convict Deep Parikh is wife of co-accused Rahul Parikh and is also Director of accused company namely M/s Fucon Technologies.
5. The case of the respondent/complainant V.K. Jain (since deceased) against the appellant/convict is that on 30.08.2011, appellant Deep Parikh along with her husband Rahul Parikh and Gurmeet Verma approached the complainant on behalf of convict company and induced him to invest funds in convict company alluring good Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:49:42 +0530 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 10 of 41 profits. Accordingly, complainant invested a total sum of Rs. 8.19 crores in convict company through cheques and bank transfers from his business / family accounts. Appellant/convict and other Directors of convict company promised to return the invested amount of the complainant with profits by 30.03.2012, however, she failed to repay the same despite repeated demands. Instead of repayment of the due amount, to the complainant, appellant/convict entered into two separate MOUs dated 07.05.2012 with the complainant. On execution of MOU dated 07.05.2012, accused Rahul Parikh (Absconder) issued multiple cheques in question, mentioned in the aforesaid table in discharge of legal liability. However, on presentation, the cheques in question got dishonored with remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide respective return memos and legal demand notices were issued by the complainant and consequently, complainant filed separate cases U/s 138 NI Act against convict company and its Directors.
6. During trial of the aforesaid cases, notices U/s 251 Cr.P.C were separately framed against all the four accused persons including convict company to which they pleaded not guilty. Accused Rahul Parikh replied to the said legal notices on behalf of the convict company. All the accused persons, including appellant/convict took the following defence in their notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. :-
Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:49:47 +0530 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 11 of 41 Defence of Rahul Parikh for himself and on behalf of M/s Fucon Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
"The cheques in question were delivered as security. Mr. V.K. Jain / Shubham Agency and I had regular monetary transaction with each other. Whenever I used to take loan from either of them, I used to provide blank signed security cheques. I have repaid all the loan amounts availed by me to Mr. V.K.Jain / Shubham Agency either by way of RTGS or through bank transfer. As per my books of accounts there is an outstanding of Rs. 34,01,500/- towards Shubham Agency by the company and towards V.K.Jain & Co. there is liability of Rs. 59,505/-. Alongwith blank signed security cheques, the accused company had provided blank signed papers and company letters. I have also misplaced my cheque book issued by Syndicate Bank in favour of accused company containing blank signed cheques for which I have also filed a NCR with the concerned PS."
Defence of Ms. Deep Parikh "I am not the signatory of cheque in question. I am not responsible for the accused company for day to day affairs as I was neither Incharge nor responsible for the conduct of accused company either on the date of issuance of cheque in question or date of dishonor and neither at the time of cheque amount being unpaid or after the issuance of legal demand notice. I was not aware of any transaction that took place between the parties. I have never visited the office of accused company nor did take part in its business at any point of time. The cheques have been presented for encashement due to some personal enmity with my husband."
Digitally signed by Defence of Ms. Gurmeet Verma Purshotam Pathak Purshotam Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:49:52 +0530 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 12 of 41 "I am not the signatory of cheque in question. I am not responsible for the accused company for day to day affairs as I was neither incharge nor responsible for the conduct of accused company either on the date of issuance of cheque in question or date of dishonor and neither at the time of cheque amount being unpaid after the issuance of legal demand notice. I was not aware of any transaction that took place between the parties. I have never visited the office of accused company nor did take part in its business at any point of time."
7. Since, during the trial of the case, complainant V.K. Jain expired, therefore, his wife Manju Jain was impleaded at her place and she examined herself as the only witness from complainant side as CW-1 and she was exhaustively cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel. Complainant closed her evidence on 23.01.2020. Statement of accused persons (appellant/convict Deep Parikh) and Gurmeet Verma was recorded on 21.03.2020, wherein they deposed as under:
Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of Deep Parikh "I do know the complainant through my husband. I was Director of the said company, however, I was not responsible for the day to day affairs of accused no. 1. I have not signed the MOU. I do not have any liability towards the complainant. I have no knowledge about the transactions. I have been falsely implicated in the present case and I have no liability to repay any amount to the complainant. I got to know about the same when an FIR Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:49:58 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain +0530 CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 13 of 41 was lodged and I was called to join investigation, though it was a false FIR."
Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of Gurmeet Verma "I do not know the complainant. I never met with the complainant. I was Director of the said company however, I was not responsible for the day to day affair of the accused no. 1. I have not signed any single document including MOU. It is matter of record though I have no knowledge about the same. I do not have any liability towards the complainant. I am an illiterate person. I have no knowledge about the transaction. I have been falsely implicated in the present case and I have no liability to repay any amount to the complainant. I got to know about the same when an FIR was lodged and I was called to join investigation though it was a false FIR."
8. Appellant/convict chose to lead defence evidence and examined Dr. Suneet Kumar Scientific Officer, FSL, Morabad, U.P as DW-1, Sh. Nirmal Kumar, MTS, Income Tax Office as DW-2 and Jitender Kumar, Inspector as DW-3. On conclusion of trial, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.05.2024, acquitted Ms. Gurmeet Verma, however, convicted accused company M/s Fucon Technologies and Ms. Deep Parikh (Director) for the offence U/s 138 NI Act. Consequently, vide order on sentence dated 18.07.2024, convict company M/s Fucon Technologies and convict Ms. Deep Parikh was sentenced to pay fine of double of the cheque amount in each case (as detailed in the table in para 1 above), jointly Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:50:04 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain +0530 CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 14 of 41 and severely within 30 days from the date of sentence, payable to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine, appellant/convict Ms. Deep Parikh was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each 21 cases. The compensation amount, if not paid within time has been directed to be recoverable as fine U/s 421 r.w. 431 Cr.P.C, as per impugned sentence order.
9. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment on conviction dated 06.05.2024 and order on sentence dated 18.07.2024 in all the respective 21 cases, only appellant/convict Deep Parikh preferred the instant appeals, only on her behalf and not on behalf of convict company M/s Fucon Technologies. Appellant/convict filed separate appeals on the following grounds:-
(a) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the only allegation against the appellant/convict is that she is the whole time Director of accused company and is responsible for the day to day affairs of the convict company. Except these allegations, there is no material which could link the appellant with the case U/s 138 NI Act;
Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:50:09 +0530 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 15 of 41
(b) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no legally enforceable debt is attracted against the appellant/convict from the documents and deposition of complainant's witnesses. Complainant was in practice of money lending / advancing loan on interest to several persons on regular basis without requisite registration / license;
(c) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged debt of friendly loan is time barred debt which cannot be legally enforceable. The claim of the complainant is based on MOU dated 07.06.2010 and 07.05.2012 executed between the husband of the complainant and husband of the appellant, which have not been proved as per settled law;
(d) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant failed to raise reasonable presumption in her favour as envisaged under Section 139 of NI Act;
(e) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant has failed to show their financial capacity, source of income, or ITRs to advance such huge amount to accused company;
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:50:15
+0530
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 16 of 41
(f) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant in her evidence failed to prove details of loan advanced and her different statements were contradictory. Complainant could not plead valid existence of legally recoverable debt against the appellant/convict;
(g) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant/convict successfully created doubt in advancement of alleged loan / liability or knowledge of transactions and has rebutted the presumption U/s 139 of NI Act;
(h) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that merely complainant being in possession of cheques issued by convict company or appellant/convict being Director thereof would not ipso facto make her liable for prosecution U/s 138 NI Act or ought to be held responsible for the conduct of the business of the convict company, as per authoritative judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court;
(i) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that CW1 Manju Jain (widow of complainant) has no personal knowledge of the facts and therefore she cannot be CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 17 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Date:
Pathak 2026.03.25
16:50:23
+0530
permitted to depose and CW1 also failed to examine any reliable witness acquainted with the facts;
(j) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that MOUs dated 07.06.2010 and 07.05.2012 are forged and fabricated documents and story put forth by the complainant is hard to be believed;
(k) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the FSL report disproved the signatures of the appellant/convict on the MOU dated 07.05.2012 which break the chain of the complainant's case and shows that she has no role in the transactions;
(l) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that CW1/complainant gave contradictory statements and could not stand in cross examination;
10. Ld. Trial Court in its impugned judgment gave the following relevant findings :
"26. Accused no. 3 is the wife of the accused no. 2 and is also director in the accused company. Accused no. 3 has been shown to be a 'whole time director' in the accused company, as per the accused company's master data Ex. CW-1/E.
27. Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 3 and 4 has argued that since as per Ex. CW-1/D, the accused no. 3 and 4 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Page 18 of 41 Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:50:28 +0530 were not shown to have registered Digital Signature Certificate (DSC), they cannot be held to be in-charge of day-to-day affairs and responsible for the management of accused company. The said argument is not tenable as it is not mandatory for all directors to be registered for DSC. Only those directors/persons of a company are supposed to register their DSC who have to sign e-forms on behalf of the company, however the same has no bearing on the ability of a person to be in-charge of day-to-day affairs and responsible for the management of a company.
28. The accused no. 3 has taken a defence that she was not the signatory of the cheque in question. This defence has been dealt with and rejected in paragraph no. 17 and 18 of this judgment and need not be reiterated. She has further taken the defence that she was not responsible for the accused company for day to day affairs as she was neither in charge or responsible for the conduct of the accused company either on the date of issuance of cheque in question or on it dishonour. She had further taken a defence that she was not aware of the transaction that took place between the parties and that he had never visited the office of accused company nor take part in its business at any point of time.
29. Admittedly, it is not the case of the accused no. 3 that she had resigned from the position of the directorship in the accused company before the dishonour of the cheque in question. As already mentioned in paragraph no. 26, the accused is shown to be a 'whole time director' in the accused company.
30. It would bode well for the discussion in the present case to refer to case laws on section 141 NI Act. In the case of 'K.K. Ahuja vs V.K. Vora & Anr' [(2009) 10 SCC 48], which has also taken into consideration the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in 'S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. [2005 (8) SCC 89]' and 'Saroj Kumar Poddar v State (NCT of CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Page 19 of 41 Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:50:34 +0530 Delhi) [2007 (3) SCC 693]', the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that:
"10. Having regard to section 141, when a cheque issued by a company (incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) is dishonoured, in addition to the company, the following persons are deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished :
(i) Every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company;
(ii) Any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company with whose consent and connivance, the offence under section 138 has been committed; and
(iii) Any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company whose negligence resulted in the offence under section 138 of the Act, being committed by the company.
While liability of persons in the first category arises under sub-section (1) of Section 141, the liability of persons mentioned in categories (ii) and (iii) arises under sub-section (2). The scheme of the Act, therefore is, that a person who is responsible to he company for the conduct of the business of the company and who is in charge of business of the company is vicariously liable by reason only of his fulfilling the requirements of sub- section (1). But if the person responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, was not in charge of the conduct of the business of the company, then he can be made liable only if the offence was committed with his consent or connivance or as a result of his negligence." (emphasis supplied)
31. It was further held in the aforesaid case that:
"14. The words "every person who, at the time of the offence was committed, was in charge of, and CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 20 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:14 +0530 was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company" occurs not only in section 141(1) of the Act but in several enactments dealing with offences by companies, to mention a few - Section 278 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 22C of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Section 86A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 14A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Section 29 of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 40 of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and section 47 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. But neither section 141(1) of the Act, nor the pari materia provisions in other enactments give any indication as to who are the persons responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. Therefore, we will have to fall back upon the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 which is the law relating to and regulating companies.
Section 291 of the said Act provides that subject to the provisions of that Act, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorised to exercise and do. A company though a legal entity can act only through its Board of Directors. The settled position is that a Managing Director is prima facie in charge of and responsible for the company's business and affairs and can be prosecuted for offences by the company. But insofar as other directors are concerned, they can be prosecuted only if they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. A combined reading of Sections 5 and 291 of Companies Act, 1956 with the definitions in clauses (24), (26), (30), (31), (45) of section 2 of that Act would show that the following persons are considered to be the persons who are responsible to CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 21 of 41 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Date: Pathak 2026.03.25 16:51:20 +0530 the company for the conduct of the business of the company : --
(a) the managing director/s;
(b) the whole-time director/s;
(c) the manager;
(d) the secretary;
(e) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the Board of directors of the company is accustomed to act;
(f) any person charged by the Board with the responsibility of complying with that provision (and who has given his consent in that behalf to the Board); and
(g) where any company does not have any of the officers specified in clauses (a) to (c), any director or directors who may be specified by the Board in this behalf or where no director is so specified, all the directors. It follows that other employees of the company, cannot be said to be persons who are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company."
32. Therefore, the accused no. 3 accordingly would be considered to be the persons responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and the complainant by proving Ex. CW-1/B showing the accused no. 3 as a 'whole time director' has been able to prove legally that accused no. 3 was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.
33. In the case of "Susela Padmavathy Amma V. M/S Bharti Airtel Limited 2024 INSC 206", the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that:
"This Court held that there is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. It was, therefore, necessary, to aver as to how the director of the company was in charge of day-to-day affairs of the company or responsible to CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page 22 of 41 Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:25 +0530 the affairs of the company. This Court, however, clarified that the position of a managing director or a joint managing director in a company may be different. This Court further held that these persons, as the designation of their office suggests, are in charge of a company and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. To escape liability, they will have to prove that when the offence was committed, they had no knowledge of the offence or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. In the present case, the onus was upon accused no. 3 to prove that she had no knowledge of the offence or that they have exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
35. The accused no. 3 has only examined one witness namely DW- 1, who had proved his report Ex. DW-1/A (colly.), i.e, a FSL report, wherein the Guarantee Deed (Ex. CW-1/E Colly.) was submitted to him by the investigating officer in FIR no. 631/2014 P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, for examining the signature of the accused no.3 on the same, marked as Q1 to Q3, and to compare them with admitted signatures (A1 - A12) and sample signature of accused no. 3 (Mark S1 to Mark S4) were submitted to him. He had further deposed that the person who had written the enclosed signature stamped and marked as Mark S1 to Mark S4 and A1 - A12 did not write the enclosed signature marked as Q1 to Q3. However, testimony of DW-1 casts a shadow of doubt only on the aspect whether the signature of the accused no. 3 has signed the aforesaid Guarantee deed or not and whether the signature on the same belongs to accused no. 3.
36. It is also pertinent to note that except a mere suggestion that the accused no. 3 was not responsible for day to day affairs of the accused company was put to CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally Page 23 of 41 signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:30 +0530 CW-1 in her cross-examination, no other specific question was asked to CW-1 qua accused no. 3 by her.
37. It is pertinent to note that when the dispute between the complainant and the accused company was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the accused no. 3 has signed upon the said agreement dated 25.03.2015 in the capacity of the director of the accused company. The accused no. 3 had stated at the time of her defence under section 251 Cr.P.C. dated 15.09.2014 and in her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. dated 05.04.2021 that she had no knowledge of the transaction with the complainant. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid statement was recorded much after in time than the mediation agreement. Therefore, judicial cognizance of the fact can be taken that where the accused no. 3 had participated in the mediation proceedings in the year 2015, which included a reference to the present proceedings, her statement recorded in the year 2020 that she had no knowledge of the transaction does not appear to be true and trustworthy.
38. Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 3 had raised an argument that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed that CW-1 had no personal information of the case. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of "A.C. Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr 2014 (11) SCC 790". It is pertinent to note that the threshold in the background of which the hon'ble Apex Court had passed the aforesaid judgment was 'at the stage of summoning the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C.'. Moreover, the case pertains to 'power of attorney holders' and not 'legal heirs'. There is a difference in both the phrases as the former would mean that a persons who is alive, may appoint someone else as his power of attorney holder, which may be specific or general. However, however he may pass away later on, still power of attorney holder would come into the existence only when the persons issuing the authority is alive. In the latter case, legal heirs CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 24 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:35 +0530 come into existence in a given case only when the original complainant has passed away.
39. Moreover, when the wife of the complainant was cross- examined, she was asked regarding the business of the accused company, she had explained that the accused company is engaged in the business of servicing of cars, furnishing of cars, import of cars and business of car oil and lubricants. No suggestion was put to her that accused company was not engaged in the aforesaid business. Now the fact CW-1 could not deposed regarding the exact amount of loan in her cross-examination would not mean that she has no personal information of the present case, as any witness cannot be expected to depose perfectly. Memory of witness may tend to lose grip on certain facts due to the passage of the time and in such a situation, it has to be seen whether what the witness has deposed is in tune with the flavour of the complaint. In the present case, CW-1 has sufficiently answered questions put to her in her cross-examination and the liability in the present case arises from the so-called admission of the managing director of the accused company namely Accused no. 2, on the MoU (Ex. CW-1/E Colly.). Therefore the defence of the Ld. Counsel for the state is liable to be rejected.
40. Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 3 has also argued that the complainant has not shown the money transaction in the ITR of the complainant concern. It is pertinent to note that the accused no. 2 has admitted the investment made by the complainant concern in the accused company in the MoU (Ex. CW-1/E Colly.) and the same can be taken into consideration against the accused no. 3 as per the mandate of section 30 Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex. CW-1/E is a documentary proof and has remained undisputed during the trial. It may not bear the signature of accused no. 3 but any admission made on behalf of the accused company, in whom accused no. 3 is also a director, shall be read against accused no. 3 also, as the directors are made vicariously liable under section 141 NI Act. Therefore, the CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Page 25 of 41 Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:42 +0530 argument that the money transaction was now shown in the ITR of the complainant concern is not tenable.
41. Therefore, the accused no. 3 has miserably failed to prove that she had no knowledge of the offence or that they have exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. Consequently, the accused no. 3 has failed to raise a probable doubt on the story of the complainant and has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 NI Act.
42. Accordingly, the point of determination No. B is decided in the affirmative qua accused no. 3.
11. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties and also perused the trial court record.
12. Ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned conviction judgments and sentence orders after considering all the contentions raised by the appellant/convict in the instant appeals. It is argued that appellant/convict does not deserve any leniency in sentence as cheques in question pertains to year 2013-14. It is argued that the impugned judgment and order on sentence does not suffer with any infirmity or illegality and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict has argued on the lines of the grounds taken by him in all CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 26 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:47 +0530 the appeals. It is argued that merely the cheques of the convict company being in possession of complainant or appellant/convict being Director, cannot be construed that she is liable for the day to day affairs of the company and is in knowledge of transaction in question. It is argued that the limited role assigned to her as per the case U/s 138 NI Act is that she is the Director of the convict company. Complainant is illegally running lending business without requisite registration / license and the alleged claimed debt is time barred. It is argued that the purported signatures on documents dated 07.06.2010 and MOU dated 07.05.2012 are not of appellant/convict as is proved by DW1 Dr. Suneet Kumar from FSL, Moradabad, U.P. It is argued that complainant remained inconsistent in her testimony and could not prove sources of advancing alleged loan or ITRs in that respect. Appellant/convict has been successful in rebutting presumption U/s 139 NI Act in her favour. It is argued that CW1/ Manju Jain is wife of deceased complainant and is not conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and she has not examined any other independent witness, who is conversant with the facts of the case. The FSL expert is a crucial witness who has broken the strength of the case of the complainant, as claimed documents/ MOU does not bear actual signatures of the appellant/convict and are forged signatures. It is CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 27 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:52 +0530 argued that the impugned judgment and order on sentence are liable to be set aside and all the appeals are liable to be allowed.
14. In the instant appeals, much deliberations are not required to be done as signatures of Rahul Parikh, Managing Director of convict company and also husband of the appellant/convict, on the cheques in question are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that all the alleged advancement/transfer of loan to the accused company was done through banking channel. It may be mentioned that all the cheques in question have been dishonored due to reason 'Funds Insufficient'. One of the main accused Rahul Parikh, who is also the Managing Director of the convict company and husband of appellant/convict was declared as absconder after framing of notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. Appellant/convict Deep Parikh is signatory to the MOU dated 07.05.2012 which is in form of undertaking. However, appellant has denied her signatures thereon.
15. The case of the complainant is that he invested Rs. 8.19 Crore in the convict company, which was paid by him through cheques and bank transfer from his business / family accounts in 2010-11. The said financial assistance was agreed to be repaid by the appellant/convict and other CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 28 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:51:56 +0530 Directors by 30.03.2012. However, instead of making repayments of loan amount, accused Rahul Parikh (for himself and convict company) and appellant/convict herein executed agreements/MOU dated 07.05.2012 admitting liability of around Rs. 3.50 crores towards M/s V.K. Jain and Company and around Rs. 4.60 crores towards M/s Shubham Agencies. Complainant has proved payments of said funds / loan to the convict company through respective bank statements in each case equivalent to the cheque amount.
16. The MOU dated 0705.2012 bearing signatures of both Rahul Parikh (Managing Director) and Deep Parikh (Director) reads as under:-
" Memorandum of Understanding We Rahul Antu Parikh (Managing Director) and Mrs. Deep Parikh (Director) of Fucon Technologies Ltd. 7/14, Shivaji Marg, Opposite Haldiram, New Delhi - 110015 do hereby confirm that M/s Shubham Agencies has invested a sum of Rs. 4,63,10,000/- with M/s Fucon Technologies Ltd. We have already paid a sum of Rs. 23,15,500/- towards the profit in the aforesaid amount and undertake to pay the profit in the same proportionate in future upto 31.10.2013 or till the total principal amount is credited in the account of M/s Shubam Agencies with agreed profit. The said amount is also secured by the property i.e. Workshop at E-23, Sector-8, Noida, U.P."
17. Similarly, separate MOU dated 07.05.2012 (Ex. CW1/D) (OSR) was signed by both Rahul Parikh and Deep Parikh CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company signed by Page 29 of 41 Digitally Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:01 +0530 for invested amount of Rs. 3,55,90,000/- for M/s V.K. Jain & Company.
18. Appellant/convict in notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. denied her involvement or knowledge but she did not disputed her position as Director in the accused company. In her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. she has admitted that she knew complainant through her husband and that she is Director of the accused company. She disputed her signatures on the MOU, appearing thereon. The factum of receipt of funds by the convict company from the complainant company or appellant/convict being Whole Time Director of the convict company is not in dispute. Appellant/convict has though denied her signatures on the MOU dated 07.05.2012 but has not disputed signatures of her husband Rahul Parikh thereon. The apparent signatures of appellant/convict with her undertaking in the MOU itself shows that she was involved in the financial affairs of the company with her husband. The status, role and responsibility of appellant Deep Parikh stands attracted from the fact that she has been shown as 'Whole Time Director' in the accused company as per Company's Master Data (Ex. CW1/B), Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/D. The plea that appellant/convict is not the signatory to the cheques is not going to help her since she being a Whole CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page 30 of 41 Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:06 +0530 time Director is deemed to be liable for the affairs of the company. Ld. Trial Court has meticulously dealt with the issue of appellant/convict being non-signatory of the cheque in para 28 and 29 of the impugned judgment which need not to be reiteriated. It may be mentioned that appellant/convict never resigned from the accused company ever since the execution of MOU in 2012 or dishonor of cheques in 2014 or prior to that when money was lent to accused company in 2010-11, which shows that the fruits of the loan have also been duly enjoyed by her throughout being whole time Director of the convict company. The testimony of DW1, does not clearly proves that the appellant/convict has not signed the MOU dated 07.05.2012 in question as his cross examination raised doubts. The role of the appellant/convict appears to be vital as she participated in Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center and signed the agreement dated 25.03.2015 in the capacity of Director of accused company. It is hard to believe in the given circumstances that appellant/convict is unaware of the transactions between the parties when MOU bears her signaturs and she is whole time Director of the accused company and also being wife of the co-accused Rahul Parikh who went Absconding during trial of the case. Even if the CW1 who is wife of deceased complainant V.K. Jain may not be in CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page 31 of 41 Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:11 +0530 personal knowledge of entire facts, however, documentary evidence speaks loud against the appellant/convict as well as convict company.
19. It is not the case of the appellant/convict that the cheques in question were stolen by the complainant but the same got dishonored due to reason 'Fund Insufficient'. The possession of cheques in question with complainant and admitted business dealing between the companies in itself proves that they were issued against the legal liabilty. The plea of defence of accused Rahul Parikh and appellant/convict in notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., as reproduced in preceding para no. 5 above reveals that they both despite being Managing Director and Director have taken contradictory stands. Accused Rahul Parikh has admitted regular financial dealings with the complainant, delivery of cheques at the time of taking loans, however, appellant/convict has shown her complete ignorance about any transactions.
20. Accused Rahul Parikh in his statement U/s 251 Cr.P.C.
has categorically taken the defence that his cheque book containing cheques in question was misplaced and he lodged NCR in that regard, however, failed to prove any such NCR, which makes the defence vague and baseless.
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Page 32 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:16 +0530 On one hand, accused Rahul Parikh in notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. has taken the plea that that the cheques in question are security cheques but at the same time, he admitted that as and when he used to take loan from the complainant V.K. Jain, he used to provide him blank signed cheques. Hence, the cheques which are issued against advancement of loan cannot be termed as 'Security Cheques' but infact are cheques against admitted liability. No evidence through documents or though any witness has surfaced on record to show that the cheques in question are security cheques. The vital aspect that the cheques were issued against the admitted liability stands proved comparing its amount with corresponding same amount transferred by the complainant in the bank account of the convict company, as is evident from bank statement. Though, no proofs of repayment of loan amount has been proved by accused Rahul Parikh, however, he has admitted outstanding part liability, in notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. framed against him. Mere submissions that 'I have repaid all the loan amounts availed by me to Mr. V.K. Jain / Shubham Agency either by way of RTGS or through bank transfer' does not absolve him of loan liability, until the same is proved by way of documentary proofs of such repayment. In the present case, all the cheques in question got dishonored due to reason 'Funds Insufficient', however, in CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 33 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:21 +0530 case, there was apprehension that complainant can misuse cheques in question or convict company had no liability as he had repaid the liability, then as to why these cheques were not taken back or why no 'stop payment' request was made after dishonor of initial cheques or that why no police complaint regarding misuse of cheques was filed by Directors of the convict company. There is sufficient proof of receipt of loan amount in the bank accounts of the convict company, however, no proof of repayment of loan availed by the convict company from the complainant. Hence, it can be safely inferred that the cheques in question were consciously issued on behalf of the convict company by its MD towards due liability of loan availed from complainant.
21. Appellant/convict herein is admittedly a 'Whole Time Director' of the convict company as per company's master data Ex. CW-1/B, Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/D. The core defence taken by the appellant/convict is that she is not signatory to the cheques in question and is not involved in affairs of convict company. Appellant/convict has fairly conceded that she is the 'Whole Time Director' of the convict company, however, she has denied to be Incharge of the company being responsible for its affairs or having knowledge of transactions or legal notice.
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 34 of 41 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Purshotam Date: Pathak 2026.03.25 16:52:28 +0530 Appellant/convict has denied her signatures on both the MOU dated 17.05.2012 but not of her husband Rahul Parik. Appellant/convict knowingly that M/s Fucon Technologies is also an convict alongwith her did not file appeal on behalf of the convict company, probably for the reason she wants to distinguish her role from convict company. Mere being non-signatory to the cheques in question cannot be a ground for acquittal of appellant/convict, specially when she is 'Whole Time Director' of the convict company and wife of co-accused Rahul Parikh (Absconder), who is MD of convict company. The plea of ignorance about transaction and business dealing of convict company with complainant or she never visited her own company wherein she is 'Whole Time Director' or never took part in its business activities, are fictitious and does not inspire confidence. The MOU dated 07.05.2012 categorically finds her name mentioned along with her husband and as per said MOU both admitted their liability towards the complainant to the tune of around Rs. 8 crores. It is not the defence of the appellant/convict that owing to matrimonial or other dispute between her and her husband (Rahul Parikh), he forged her signatures on the MOU. The signatures of Rahul Parikh on the MOU has neither been disputed by appellant/convict nor by DW-1 (witness from FSL).
CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page 35 of 41 Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:34 +0530 Though, appellant/convict has taken the defence that the complainant presented the cheques due to some personal enmity with her husband, however, failed to explain any probable cause of alleged enmity. Accused Rahul Parikh has admitted handing over of cheques in question to the complainant at the time of availing loan, which leaves no misunderstanding as to how cheques traveled in the possession of complainant. Appellant/convict cross examined the complainant on the point that MOU does not bear signatures of the complainant, which is correct but the language of said two MOUs does not reveal that the same have been executed between two parties, rather it is an undertaking by appellant/convict and her husband admitting the pending liability of around Rs. 8 crores.
22. Once the appellant/convict is whole time Director of the convict company wherein her husband is Managing Director, the same is sufficient to infer that she has vital and active role in the day to day affairs of the company, specially when the MOU clearly finds her name and signatures, whereby liability has been admitted, which directly links her with the convict company.
Appellant/convict has raised the ground that complainant used to lend money without having proper registration and license, which does not infer any relevant meaning as all the money advanced by the complainant has been duly CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 36 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:41 +0530 paid through banking channel. Appellant has failed to explain as to how the debt of alleged loan is time barred and is not legally enforceable. The money was advanced by the complainant in 2010-11, which was agreed to be returned in March, 2012 and MOU was executed on 07.05.2012, when allegedly cheques in question were issued for 2013-14, when the cheques got dishonored in 2014 and the cases U/s 138 NI Act have been pending since then. Appellant/convict has failed to show any documentary evidence or examine any witness in her defence to show that the claimed debt is time barred or is not legally enforceable. Since the loan has been transferred from the bank account of the complainant and credited in the bank account of the accused company, the ground of showing sources of funding by the complainant does not arise.
23. It may be mentioned that despite, widow of complainant Manju Jain may not be conversant of the entire facts and circumstances of the case owing to death of complainant V.K. Jain during trial of the case, however, she proved her case and remained intact in her cross examination. It may further be mentioned that complainant has entirely proved credit of funds in the bank account of convict company through bank transfers, equivalent cheque amount in question, whereas appellant/convict company has failed to CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally Page 37 of 41 signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:46 +0530 prove the repayment of the loan amount, which shows that complainant has been able to prove her case by way of direct evidence. Even otherwise, if the signatures of the appellant/convict on the MOU does not squarely match, then also she being the 'Whole Time Director' and wife of Managing Director of the convict company, who also executed Mediation settlement agreement in 2015 before Delhi High Court, is deemed to be responsible for the day to day affair of the convict company. Nothing contradictory on the part of Ms. Manju Jain has been categorically pointed out by the appellant/convict, therefore, such allegation has no standing and are bald in nature. It is an undisputed fact that appellant/convict remained Director of the convict company throughout ever since disbursement of loan in 2010 lastly till dishonor of cheques in question and even thereafter and has never resigned from the convict company, which shows that she has enjoyed fruits of the loans advanced by the complainant.
24. There is no dispute that legal notice was not served or it bears different address. It may be mentioned that on one hand appellant/convict has only represented herself in appeal and not the convict company and on the other hand she signed the Mediation at Delhi High Court in 2015 in CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Page 38 of 41 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:51 +0530 the capacity of Director. Appellant cannot be permitted to take benefits of her own wrongs and take twisting stands as per her convenience. The frequent change in her versions by the appellant/convict, giving evasive denial replies to the specific queries in notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C and U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and non-disputing of signatures of her husband co-accused Rahul Parikh on the cheques in question, draws adverse inference against her and makes it clear that she is guilty of the offence U/s 138 NI Act. Ld. Trial Court has passed a reasoned judgment convicting the appellant and has suitably sentenced the appellant/convict considering that the case pertains to year 2014 and she has been able to drag trial until 2026.
25.The conduct of the appellant/convict apparent on record draws absolutely adverse inference against her and she deserves no leniency.
26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no substance is found in support of the various grounds raised in these appeals. So far as the aspect of sentencing by the Ld. Trial Court is concerned, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict on the point of sentence does not inspire confidence as Ld. Trial Court has sufficiently accommodated the appellant/convict by awarding nominal CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page 39 of 41 Pathak Date:
2026.03.25 16:52:58 +0530 sentence and no substantive sentence of imprisonment. I am of the view that Ld. Trial Court has already taken quite a lenient view while sentencing the convict, as such, the sentence imposed by the Ld. Trial Court does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the 21 appeals stands dismissed and the impugned judgments and order on quantum of sentences passed in 21 cases, stands upheld.
27. Appellant/convict shall comply with the sentence order within 30 days from today failing which, she shall surrender before the Ld. Trial Court to suffer default sentence.
28. Copy of the judgment be provided to both the parties.
29.Copies of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned Trial Court in all the 21appeal.
30. One copy of the judgment under signature of undersigned be placed in each lead cases wherein, respondent is Manju Jain bearing CA No. 318/204, respondent is M/s Shubham Agencies bearing CA No. 321/2024 and wherein respondent is M/s V.K. Jain & Co. bearing CA No. 325/2024 and digitally signed copies be placed in remaining 18 connected appeals.Digitally signed by Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak Date: Pathak 2026.03.25 16:53:03 +0530 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 40 of 41
31. All the twenty one appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Digitally
signed by
Today on 25th March, 2026 Purshotam
Purshotam
Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.25
16:53:08
+0530
(PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi : 25.03.2026 CA No. 318, 319, 320 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. Manju Jain CA No. 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 339, 340 / 2024 Deep Parikh vs. M/s Shubham Agencies CA No. 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336 of 2024, Deep Parikh vs. M/s V.K. Jain and Company Page 41 of 41