Delhi District Court
Pramod Kumar Mishra vs Krishan Kant Singh3 on 23 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF NITESH GOEL, LD. JMFC (NI ACT-09)
S.W. DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
CC NI ACT 2963/2024
CNR NO. DLSW02-002548-2024
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA
S/o Late Sh. Yogender Mishra,
R/o H. No. RZ-E-163A, Gali no. 16,
Pole No. 230, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045
..........Complainant
VERSUS
KRISHAN KANT SINGH,
S/o Sh. Awdesh Singh,
Sole Proprietor of M/s AS Infratech,
R/O Village Hazipur, Sector-104,
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar-201301.
Also at:
Shop No. 33, VDS Market, Sector-110,
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP-201304. ..........Accused
Date of Institution : 18.01.2024
Offence complained of : u/s 138 N.I. Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial
Date of decision : 23.02.2026
Decision : Convicted
CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 1
Digitally
signed by
NITESH
NITESH GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.02.23
13:11:45
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely Pramod Kumar Mishra (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") against accused namely Krishan Kant Singh (hereinafter referred to as "accused") in respect of the dishonour of cheque bearing no. 000228 dated 28.07.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and cheque bearing no. 000179 dated 20.10.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, both drawn on Bandhan Bank, Sector-110, Noida-201305 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheque in question").
2. BRIEF FACTS That the complainant had into a partnership in the name and style of M/s. Triveni Infratech (GST Registration No. 07AARFT0771A1Z8) on 24.12.2020 with one Mr. Gulab Chand Mehta S/o Sh. Sahdev Mehta, R/o RZ-229A, Gali No. 6, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, South West Delhi-110045 for the business of sale/ purchase of immovable property renting, brokerage and commissions etc. and ancillary business related thereto. A copy of partnership deed is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. That the accused Sh. K. K. Singh is sole proprietor of AS Infratech, as was represented by the accused to the complainant and is stated to be dealing in real estate and sell-purchase of land. That the accused had earlier dealt with Mr. Gulab Chand Mehta being one of the partner of M/s Triveni Infratech in property related dealings accordingly the complainant was also lured into/ persuaded to enter into an agreement to sell, as such the same came to be executed between the accused and M/s Triveni Infratech on 30.12.2020. A copy of agreement to sell dated 30.12.2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure B. That in terms of aforesaid "Agreement to Sell" the accused had represented that the accused was owner/ allotee and in possession agricultural land area 3000 sq. yards comprising in Khata No. 00457, Khasra No. 507, situated in village, Faleda Bangar, Tehsil CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 2 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:11:49 +0530 Jewar, District, Gautam Budh Nagar, and the accused further represented that the accused was desirous to sell the said property for Rs. 30 lakhs per bigha for a total sale consideration of Rs. 90 lakhs.
That in terms of said "Agreement to sell" the accused had received the payment of Rs. 9,50,000/- as mentioned hereunder:
Sl. Mode of Payment Dated Amount
No.
1. Cash 20.12.2020 1,50,000/-
2. IMPS (035541320635) 20.12.2020 1,00,000/-
3. IMPS (035655606105) 21.12.2020 1,00,000/-
4. Cheque No. 489496 30.12.2020 1,65,000/-
drawn on Axis Bank
5. Cash 30.12.2020 2,85,000/-
6. UPI (101437695286) 14.01.2021 1,00,000/-
7. UP (1015577246600) 15.01.2021 50000/-
Total 9,50,000/-
It is pertinent to note that the accused had taken the cheque bearing no. 489496 dated 30.12.2020 of Rs. 1,65,000/- as the accused had told the complainant that the accused were to hand over the same to the original landlord and as per the bank statement of the complainant issued by complainant's banker, the accused had given the same to one Rajesh Singh who had encashed the same on 15.01.2021. It is further relevant to note that out of total payment of Rs. 950000/- as aforesaid Rs. 5,50,000/- was paid by Parmod Kumar Mishra and Rs. 4 lakhs was paid by Gulab Chand Mehta.
That in terms of said "Agreement to sell" the accused had further agreed that the accused shall apply and obtain the permission for transfer the said property from the Greater Noida Authority in favour of the complainant and/ or his nominee by way of sale deed/ transfer deed within dated 31.05.2021.
CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 3 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:11:53 +0530 That in terms of said "Agreement to Sell" the accused had further assured the complainant that the said property was free from all sorts of encumbrances such as mortgage, gift, exchange, dispute, litigation, attachment, pledge and decrees of any court of law and if proved otherwise the accused shall be liable and responsible for the same and the complainant shall have right to recover the entire amount with cost and expenses from the movable and immovable properties of the accused.
That in terms of said "Agreement to Sell" the expenses to be incurred for the execution of the transfer/sale deed on stamp duty, registration fees and other legal expenses will be born by the complainant and the complainant shall have right to get the transfer/ sale deed executed in his favour and/ or in his nominee' favour for which the accused had no objection.
That in terms of said "Agreement to Sell", the accused had agreed to pay all outstanding dues and demands due in respect of the said property to the date thereof and future dues were payable by the complainant and the accused had further agreed to hand over the vacant actual physical possession of the above said property to the complainant at the time of execution of Final Transfer Deed.
That in terms of said "Agreement to Sell", the accused had further agreed that the accused shall be bound to execute the sale deed and proper documents and registered either in the name of the complainant or his nominee at the time of receiving balance consideration up to the last date fixed between parties.
That in terms of said Agreement to Sell the complainant was liable to pay all the expenses of the execution and registration of the documents. That it was specifically agreed by the accused that in case the accused violates the terms and conditions of the agreement then the accused shall pay the double of the advance money to the complainant and in case the complainant violates the terms and conditions of the agreement then the accused was entitled to forfeit the advance and the agreement were liable to be cancelled.
CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 4 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:11:56 +0530 That the accused had come on 30.12.2020 to Palam and after signing and executing of the said "Agreement to Sell", the accused had taken original of the same for the purpose of notarization and further registration thereof and till date the accused has not returned the original of the said "Agreement to Sell" to the complainant despite having been asked several times by the complainant, admittedly for the want of which the complainant could not pursue its remedies as available under law in terms thereof. Moreover because of very first deal getting stuck solely because acts and omissions committed by the accused further business could not be conducted in the said partnership of M/s Triveni Infratech. That after hectic follow up by the complainant, the accused had agreed to refund entire amount alongwith interest and towards repayment thereof made online payment in two tranches of Rs. 25000/- each, firstly on 21.04.2023 by way of IMPS and on 12.05.2023 by way of a NEFT in the account no. 53370100002640 and for remaining payment issued two cheques bearing no. 000228 dated 28.07.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and cheque bearing no. 000179 dated 20.10.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Bandhan Bank, Sector-110, Noida-201305 in favour of complainant.
That as per the assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque, which got dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and was returned vide cheque return memo dated 23.10.2023. Thereafter, the complainant immediately informed the accused about the dishonoring of the said cheque and again requested him to make the payment of the cheque amount but since thereafter the accused started avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other and completely failed to make the payments of the cheque amount to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 28.10.2023 to the accused through speed post which was duly served upon him. Since the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque in question within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of legal demand notice, hence, the CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 5 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:12:00 complainant has moved the court with the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").
3. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT The cognizance of the complaint was taken and prima facie the offence u/s 138 NI Act was made out against Krishan Kant Singh, who was summoned vide order dated 22.11.2024. The notice u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 16.10.2025, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the notice as the accused has admitted the liability and he has no defence to make therefore considering the plea that there is no benefit of the accused for cross-examining the complainant, the right of cross-examination by accused was closed on 16.10.2025. Statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 04.12.2025 in which the accused does not chose to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties on 05.02.2026 and the matter was fixed for judgment.
4. EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT In the pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself as CW-1 on affidavit vide Ex. CW1/1 and placed reliance on the complaint and certain documents i.e. Copy of partnership deed Ex. CW-1/A (OSR), Copy of agreement to sell Mark A, Bank statement of complainant Ex. CW-1/C, Cheque in Question bearing no. 000228 Ex.
CW1/D1, Cheque Return Memo dated 23.10.2023 Ex. CW1/D2, Cheque in Question bearing no. 000179 Ex. CW1/D3, Cheque Return Memo dated 23.10.2023 Ex.CW-1/D4, Legal Demand Notice and Postal Receipt Ex. CW1/E (Colly.).
CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 6 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:12:04 +0530
5. LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION At the very outset, it is pertinent to lay down the ingredients of the offence u/s. 138 of NI Act. In Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India culled out the following ingredients in order to constitute an offence u/s. 138 of NI Act:
"13. It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
6. Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act."
CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 7 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:12:08 +0530
14. Before moving forward with the contentions of the accused, it is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of section 118(a) and Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan 139 of the NI Act, in every case u/s. 138 of NI Act, there is a presumption of law that the cheque has been issued for consideration and in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.
15. It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein it has been held that the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the court is bound to raise presumption u/s. 118 r/w. 139 NI Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
7. In the facts of the present case, the signatures on the cheque in question have been admitted by the accused. Accordingly, this court raises presumption u/s. 118(a) r/w. section 139 of NI Act that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is now on the accused to raise a probable defence and to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
8. The accused had not raised any defence in respect of legal existing liability towards the complainant. It was just stated by the accused during the notice dated u/s 251 CrPC dated 16.10.2025 that the particulars of the cheque had not been filled by him however at the same time he stated that he owed Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant out of which he had already paid Rs. 50000/- and currently he owes Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant. The cheque in question Ex. CW-1/D1 and Ex. CW-1/D3 jointly amounts to CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 8 Digitally signed by NITESH NITESH GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.23 13:12:12 +0530 Rs. 3 lakhs in total which is equal to the admitted outstanding liability of the accused towards the complainant. In light of the same, it stands proved that the present cheque in question had been issued by the accused towards the complainant for discharge of the legally existing debt of Rs. 3 lakhs.
9. FINAL ORDER In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the view that the accused is not able to rebut the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act raised in favour of the complainant by way of standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Resultantly, the accused Krishan Kant Singh sole proprietor of AS Infratech stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Let a signed copy of the Judgment be supplied to the accused, free of cost, and a copy of the same be placed on record.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
Digitally
COURT ON 23.02.2026 signed by
NITESH
NITESH GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.02.23
13:12:16
+0530
(Nitesh Goel)
JMFC-09 (NI Act), S.W., Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi/23.02.2026
CC NI ACT 2963/2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Krishan Kant Singh 9