Delhi District Court
Ms Ritu Katiyal vs Sh Tanuj Kumar on 5 May, 2025
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
DLNW020107392022
IN THE COURT OF MS PARUL SHARMA:
LD. JMFC NI ACT DIGITAL COURT-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT ROHINI, NEW DELHI.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
Name of complainant : Ms. RITU KATYAL
W/O RAVI KATYAL
R/O PLOT NO. 92,
MEERA ENCLAVE
CHOKAHNDI,
TILAK NAGAR,
DELHI - 110018
ALSO AT
M/S BHAGWATI MOBILE
ZONE
E-16/147, SECTOR-8,
ROHINI, DELHI- 110085
Name of Accused : SH. TANUJ KUMAR
S/O JAI BHAGWAN
R/O FLAT NO. 69, POCKET,
E-15 SECTOR-8, ROHINI
Delhi - 110085
Offence complained of :138 NI Act
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard on : 23.01.2025
Date of judgement : Convicted
Decision : 05.05.2025
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 1 of 29
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06
17:02:35
+0530
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter filed by complainant for the dishonour of cheque bearing no 208426 dt. 15.02.2022 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Chandni Chowk Delhi Branch, New Delhi - 110006. (hereinafter referred to as 'cheque in question').
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that she along with her husband is engaged in the business of booking flight tickets from their office situated at Rohini, Delhi. Further, accused and his wife Varsha Thakur being in the business of tour operations started booking flight tickets of their clients from the office of the complainant. From 18.01.2022 to 15.02.2022, accused made the booking of 23 flight tickets for different destinations through complainant amounting to Rs. 10,85,501/-. Details of the said 23 tickets have been stated under para 4 of the complaint in a tabular form.
3. Despite repeated requests the aforesaid amount of Rs.
10,85,501/- was not paid by the accused. Finally in part discharge of legal liability, accused issued the cheque in question. Upon presentation, cheque in question was returned unpaid with remarks "Account CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 2 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:03:04 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR Blocked" vide returning memos dt.16.02.2022, 28.02.2022 and 03.03.2022.
4. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.03.2022 to the accused through speed post calling upon him pay the cheque amount. The legal demand notice was also sent to the accused on his email id [email protected] as well as through WhatsApp on his mobile no. 9310439051. It is the case of the complainant that despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within 15 days. Hence, the present complaint.
5. The present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
6. Cognizance was taken on 06.08.2022 and summons were issued to accused.
7. Notice u/s 251 was framed upon the accused on 13.10.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, accused was given the right to cross examine the complainant.
8. Complainant examined herself as CW1 and adopted her pre summoning affidavit Ex. CW 1/A. Examination-in-chief of CW1 as was conducted on 28.11.2022 wherein she relied upon the following documents:-
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 3 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06
17:03:08
+0530
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR Original Cheque in question Ex. CW1/1.
Original bank returning memo Ex. CW1/2. dt. 16.02.2022 Original bank returning memo Ex. CW1/3. dt. 28.02.2022 Original bank returning memo Ex. CW1/4 dt. 09.03.2022 Office copy of legal notice dt. Ex. CW1/5 01.11.2021 Original postal receipts Ex. CW1/6 Tracking report Ex. CW1/7 Receipt of notice via email Ex. CW1/8 Receipt of notice via Ex. CW1/9 WhatsApp Copy of e-tickets issued by the Ex. CW1/10 complainant CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 4 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:12 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR CW1/complainant was cross examined and discharged on 28.11.2022. Thereafter, CW-2/Ravi Katyal i.e. husband of the complainant was examined-in-chief wherein he adopted his affidavit Ex. CW2/A. He was cross examined and discharged on the same day. Closing CE, the matter was listed for SA.
9. All the incriminating evidences and the documents on record were put to the accused and his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.11.2023. Thereafter, accused chose to lead DE.
10. DW1/Accused was examined on 30.01.2024.
Thereafter he was cross- examined and discharged on 06.05.2024. Closing DE the matter was listed for final arguments.
11. Final oral arguments were advanced by Ld. counsels for both the parties.
12. Thereafter application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant for bringing additional documents on CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 5 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:03:16 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR record. After hearing arguments, the said application was allowed.
13. CW1/Complainant relied upon the following additional documents:
Screenshots of the e-mail sent to the Ex. CW1/11 accused by CW2 WhatsApp chats between CW2 and Ex. CW1/12 the accused Pen drive consisting of voice notes Ex. CW1/13 exchanged between CW2 and accused over WhatsApp Transcript of the voice notes Ex. CW1/14 Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Ex. CW1/15 Act CW1/Complainant was cross examined and discharged w.r.t the additional documents on 28.09.2024.
14. Thereafter, another application was filed u/s 311 on behalf of CW2/Ravi Katyal relying upon the above CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 6 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:03:20 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR stated additional documents. The said application was allowed. CW2/Ravi Katyal was examined, cross- examined and discharged w.r.t the additional documents.
15. Final oral arguments were advanced by Ld. counsels for both the parties.
16. During the course of said arguments, it was observed by the undersigned that additional incriminating documents Ex. CW/11 to Ex. CW1/15 which were brought later were never put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Being a mandatory exercise, additional statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 09.04.2025.
17. Written arguments filed by the accused are already on record. Submissions heard and considered. Records of the case have been duly perused.
18. LAW AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE:CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 7 of 29
Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:24 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR 18.1 To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following: -
i. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
ii. the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
iii. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
iv. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
v. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 8 of 29
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06
17:03:27
+0530
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR vi. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
vii. the debt or other liability against which the cheque was issued is legally enforceable.
18.2 Coming to the facts of the present complaint case, it is admitted by the accused that the cheque in question bears his signatures.
Further, he admits filling up all the particulars on the cheque in question in the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in the statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Contrary to this, he denies filling up the particulars on the cheque in question in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C as well in his cross examination. Thus, contradictory stands have been taken by the accused. Drawing an adverse inference, it can be said that the cheque in question was drawn CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 9 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:03:31 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR by the accused in favour of the complainant. Even otherwise it is pertinent to mention that u/s 20 of the NI Act if a person gives a duly signed cheque which is either blank or partly filled then he is deemed to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particulars in it and complete the cheque, thus making the drawer liable for the payment mentioned in it. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision u/s 138 would be attracted. (Reliance placed on Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197). Hence, the essential ingredient no.
(i) as discussed in the preceding paragraph stands fulfilled.
18.3 Accused has further admitted the fact of dishonor of cheque in question in the statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC. Hence, other essential ingredients as stated in ingredient no. (iii) and
(iv) also stands fulfilled.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 10 of 29 Digitally signed by PARULSHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:03:35 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR 18.4 Accused has denied the receipt of legal demand notice in his notice u/s 251 CrPC as well as in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., however has stated that the address mentioned on the legal notice is correct. In addition to this it has been stated by the accused in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C that both the mobile numbers mentioned on the legal notice are correct. The fact that the accused was operating from the given address has not been denied by him. Further, accused entered appearance before the court and despite the matter coming in his knowledge and all the relevant documents being supplied to him, has failed to pay the amount within statutory time period of 15 days. Hence, essential ingredient number (v) and (vi) also stands fulfilled in the present case. (Reliance placed on "C.C. Alavi CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 11 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:39 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR Hazi Vs. Palapetty Mohd & Anr" reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555).
18.5 Now, since the accused admitted the execution of impugned cheque in question as well as his signatures thereon, the statutory presumptions u/s 118 A and section 139 of NI Act would be raised in favour of the complainant regarding the fact that the impugned cheque have been drawn for consideration and issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability. Relying upon the foundational fact, one statutory presumption has been raised in favour of the complainant. The burden of proof now lies upon the accused to rebut the said statutory presumption on the yardstick of "preponderance of probabilities". Further, the lack of consideration or existence of legally enforceable debt or liability need not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 12 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:43 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR accused can do the same either by leading evidence or by bringing out such inconsistencies or contradictions in the case of the complainant which simply goes on to overthrow the complainant's case. (Reliance placed on Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC441; Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418).
19. DEFENCES 19.1 CHEQUE IN QUESTION BEING ISSUED AS A SECURITY CHEQUE i. In the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in the statement recorded u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C, it is the defence of the accused that the cheque in question was given as a security cheque to the husband of the complainant in the business transaction for the purpose of booking CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 13 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:47 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR flight tickets. It has been further stated by the accused that the cheque in question was handed over at the office of the complainant however neither complainant nor Varsha Thakur was present at the said time.
ii. Dealing with the said defence, no evidence has been brought on record substantiating the fact that the cheque in question was issued for security purposes. Even if the defense version about security cheques is considered and believed for a moment, the position with respect to security cheque has already been laid down in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Crl No. 867of 2016 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if on the date of the cheque, liability of debt exists CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 14 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:51 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR or the amount has become legally recoverable, offence u/s 138 NI Act is attracted and not otherwise. Hence the first defence taken by the accused falls. 19.2 ALLEGED 23 FLIGHT TICKETS NEVER ORDERED TO BE BOOKED
i) In answer to question no. 5 and question no. 8 in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, it has been stated by the accused he never directed the complainant to book any 23 flight tickets. He further stated that he might have ordered one/two small flight tickets but payment towards them 'must have been collected hand to hand by the office boy of the complainant Bittu' . The accused has further explained that at the time of receiving orders for the booking of flight tickets from his client, he used to direct the husband of complainant to collect the payments directly from the house of clients or at times, payments were collected in cash from his house or made online by him.CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 15 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL
SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:03:54 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
ii) The accused further stated that since no alleged 23 tickets were ever booked by him, hence no liability of Rs. 10,85,501/- was ever incurred by him towards the complainant. In order to substantiate the said defence, it has been further stated by the accused that since fresh tickets have been booked by the complainant even when he was allegedly defaulting payments for the ones already booked, hence the version of the complainant is unbelievable as no prudent person in such circumstances shall grant any such accommodation. Thereby, it is argued that he has successfully rebutted the presumption casted against him.
iii) Dealing with the aforesaid contentions, it is noteworthy to observe that the accused has stated throughout the trial that he was engaged in the business of flight tickets booked through the husband of the complainant. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, it has been further stated CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 16 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:03:58 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR by the accused that he got around 100 tickets booked from the husband of the complainant for his clients from September to December 2021. Further, he had dealings with the husband of the complainant only till mid-January 2022 and no bookings were done thereafter. Hence, the factum about business dealings between the husband of the complainant and the accused is not disputed.
iv) Going further, as per the version of the accused, he 'may have booked one/two small tickets' , however payments for the same were collected by the office boy of the complainant namely Bittu. The said person Bittu was never examined as a witness for the purpose of proving the factum of payments.
Also, as per the accused's own version, he had been booking substantial number of tickets through husband of the complainant since 2021. Hence, any reasonable and prudent person engaged in a similar business would be maintaining accounts/ledger in the course of day-to-day activities. No such CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 17 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:02 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR account statement was ever produced by the accused in order to prove the factum of payments made to the office boy of the complainant namely Bittu.
v) In order to substantiate the factum about booking of 23 flight tickets, complainant has relied upon copy of the e-tickets Ex. CW-1/10. Further the said e- tickets were also shared on the e-mail id of the accused namely [email protected]. Copy of the screenshots substantiating the delivery of copy of e-tickets through email as well WhatsApp have been exhibited as EX. CW/11 and Ex. CW1/12.
vi) The said e-mail and WhatsApp screenshots Ex.
CW1/11 and Ex. CW1/12 have been specifically denied by the accused in the additional statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Upon specifically asking the accused if the phone no. 9643232596 belongs to him, he has denied the same. Contradictory to this, in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 18 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:04:06 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR 16.11.2023, the accused has admitted that both the mobile numbers mentioned on the legal notice belongs to him however they were changed in the month of February, 2022. The accused further admitted that e-mail id [email protected] is correct and belongs to him but is inaccessible. It is pertinent to mention that in the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5, two mobile numbers of the accused have been mentioned namely 9310439051 and 9643232596. As per the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. CW1/15, the said WhatsApp chats Ex. CW1/12 were done with the accused on his mobile number 9643232596. Since the mobile number as well as e-mail Id has been duly admitted by the accused to be correct, hence veracity of the said documents cannot be doubted.
Moreover, the other mobile no. 9310439051 has been stated by the accused on the personal bonds furnished before the court dt. 26.09.2022 which CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 19 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:10 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR falsifies the contention that this number was changed in the month of February, 2022.
vii) It is pertinent to mention that Certificate u/s 65 B has been filed in support of Ex. CW/11 to Ex.
CW1/15. Veracity of Ex. CW1/11 and Ex. CW1/12 has been already established as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Further, the accused has specifically denied the Voice notes Ex. CW1/13 as well as transcripts of the said voice notes Ex. CW1/14. Simpliciter denial by the accused shall not disprove the said clinching pieces of evidences automatically in light of the fact that certificate u/s 65B has been filed in support of the same. No evidence has been brought on record by the accused at any point of time for the purpose of proving that Ex. CW1/13 and Ex. CW1/14 is false and fabricated. In absence of any evidence to this effect, veracity of Ex. CW1/13 and Ex. CW1/14 cannot be doubted.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 20 of 29 Digitally signed by PARULSHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:04:14 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
viii) Upon perusal of the voice notes Ex. CW1/13 and transcripts Ex. CW1/14, it is noteworthy to mention that the accused has admitted his liability at several places. Further, accused is giving repeated assurances to the complainant about payments. Some of the excerpts from Ex. CW1/14 are reproduced as follows:
"दिनाक 21/01/2022 तनुज 16:34 पीएम दूसरा भैया आप पैसों की एक परसें ट टें शन मत लेना आज नहीं तो कल मतलब मैं यह बहु त मतलब दुख मन से बोलूं कि आज नहीं तो कल आपके पास पैसे मैं पहुंचा कर जाऊं गा चाहे मैं कै से भी पहु चाऊ मैं मेरे घर की समस्या देखो एक अलग है लेकिन बिजनेस एक अपनी जगह है, आज नहीं तो कल आपके पास पेमें ट मेरी तरफ से पहुंच जाएगी हड्रे ड परसें ट ।
29 जनवरी 2022 तनुज 14:39 पीएम 1,30,800/- रुपे आज आपको पक्का मिल जाएगे जैसे ही वह ऑफिस पहुंच जाएंगे वह मुझे कॉल कर दें गे, वह कह रहे हैं . इन के स मैं ऑफिस नहीं भी आया तो मैं CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 21 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.06 17:04:18 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR पंजाबी बाग रहता हूँ पजाबी बाग से आप घर से ले लेना, मैं जैसे ही जहा पहु चं ऑफिस या घर आपको कॉल कर दूंगा। 12 फरवरी 2022 तनूज : 19:51 पीएम यार मैं भैया सुबह में आपके सामने कितने फोन आये हैं आपके आगे ही आए हैं ना सारे फोन अब मैं नीचे तक नहीं उतार पाऊं गा। मेरी भी तो प्रॉब्लम समझो, ना नहीं तो मैं क्या आता नहीं क्या आपके पास या मैं एक दिन के मुंह छु पा कर कहीं भाग जाऊं गा और संडे उनका ऑफिस खुला होता है, आपको मुझे लेकर चलना हो तो मुझे लेकर चल देना और अगर अके ले जाना हो तो अके ले चले जाना 12 बजे के बाद कभी भी जा कर उनके लॉरें स रोड वाले ऑफिस से 6,80,000 /- रुपए ले लेना हो सके तो अगर तो मुझे भी यहां से साथ लेकर चलना मैं भी इनका ऑफिस देख लूंगा एक बार। तनुज 19:51 पीएम दोनों चल पड़ें गे चल साथ में दिनांक 16 फरवरी 2022 रवि 17:33 पीएम भैया वो चेक डिशऑनर हो गया है वापसी हो गया है मतलब वो ।
तनुज 17:34 पीएम रीजन क्या है भैया चेक डिशऑनर का CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 22 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:23 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR तनुज 17:34 पीएम एक बारी मुझे वह लड़का मैसेज फॉरवर्ड करो जो आपके पास आया है
ix) It is further noteworthy to mention that the accused is giving orders of booking of subsequent flight tickets to the husband of the complainant in addition to assurances for clearing the payments for previous bookings. Some of the excerpts from Ex. CW1/14 are reproduced as follows:
"दिनांक 17 फरवरी 2022 तनुज 19:48 पीएम असल में इसे 10 गु ना दिखाऊं गा भैया टें शन ना लो ये इनके पैसे मेरे पास कै श आ गए हैं आप यह टिकट इशू करके दे दो मुझे मैं रात को आऊगा रात को आंटी की दुकान खुली होगी तो आंटी को दे दूंगा नहीं तो बिट्टू को बोल देना मेरे घर से ले जाए सुबह-सुबह । रवि 19:54 पीएम अरे जैसे इसका आईडी में नाम लिखा हु आ है वैसे ही करना है चंदवानी निलेश ।
रवि 19:57 पीएम अरे बताओ भैया जल्दी से फिर फे यर बढ़ जाएगा CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 23 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:26 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR तनुज 19:57 पीएम वैसे ही कर दो भैया जैसे आईडी पर है सेम ।
दिनांक 18 फरवरी 2022 तनुज 14:52 पीएम ये उन्हीं कि वो चंदवानी निलेश की जो कल बनवाई है उसी की 21 तारीख की टिकट बना दो और यह लड़का आपको 7700 रुपे गूगल पे कर देगा अभी, 210 रुपे आपके कल के बचे हु ए हैं इसकी टिकट के और 7465 ये होंगे ये शाम तक आपको गूगल पे कर देगा और दूसरा बाकी मैं और भी कु छ ना कु छ पेमें ट मैं आपको करवाऊगा थोडी देर बाद में भेजूंगा बिट्टू को पंजाबी बाग पेमें ट के लिए, वहा से आज पेमें ट आनी है।
तनुज 17:06 p.m कर दो इशू भैया कर दो"
The above falsifies the version of the accused that no bookings were ordered by him after January 2022. Since fresh tickets were booked by CW2/husband of the complainant upon assurances of payments given by the accused, it cannot be said that this fact makes the version of the complainant unbelievable and it creates CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 24 of 29 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:31 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR sufficient doubts on the her story thereby rebutting the presumption casted against the accused.
x) In light of the aforesaid discussion, even the second defence raised by the accused fails.
20. Apart from the abovesaid defences, additional contentions have also been raised by Ld. counsel for the accused. It has been argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that perusal of the cross examination of CW1/Complainant reveals that she is not aware of any transaction between her and the complainant. CW1/complainant has stated throughout the cross examination that her husband is doing the business of ticketing. She further states that she came to know about the issuance of cheque in question from her husband and it was not handed over to her by the accused. Hence, the aforementioned facts goes to the roots of the case making the story of the complainant false and frivolous.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 25 of 29Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:38 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
21. Dealing with the said contention, it is noteworthy to mention that the accused has stated since inception of the case and throughout the trial that he used to do business dealings of issuing flight tickets with the husband of the accused and even the cheque in question was handed over to the husband of the complainant. In light of the said fact, lack of knowledge of CW1/Complainant about transactions with the accused or details about business being run by her husband CW2 does not prejudice her case to the extent of punching holes in the story and thereby resulting in rebuttal of presumption raised against the accused.
22. It has been further argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that no document has been placed on record substantiating the financial capacity of the complainant to book the alleged tickets. Dealing with the same, it is pertinent to mention that the accused himself stated in the statement u/s 31 Cr.P.C that CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 26 of 29 PARUL SHARMA Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA Date: 2025.05.06 17:04:42 +0530 MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR around 100 tickets were booked from the husband of the complainant between September to December 2021. It was also stated by the accused that ticket booking transactions were done on credit basis with the husband of the complainant. In light of the said facts, questioning the financial capacity of the complainant is irrelevant and misplaced.
23. It has also been argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that Varsha Thakur was never examined as a witness by the complainant to prove the transactions in question since as per her own version under para 7 of the complaint, she was an eye witness to the same. Dealing with this, it is needless to state that sufficient documentary evidence has already been placed on record to substantiate the transactions as well as liability of the accused which have been discussed in detail above. Non examination of Varsha Thakur by the complainant does not prove fatal for her case.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 27 of 29
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06
17:04:45
+0530
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
24. In light of the above discussion, there is no reason for doubting the version of the complainant and further about the non-existence of the legal liability. Business dealing between the accused and husband of the complainant is well established. Issuance of the cheque in question and signatures of the accused therein are admitted. No evidence have been brought on record falsifying Ex. CW/11 to Ex. CW1/15. In fact, the mobile number mentioned on the certificate u/s 65B Ex. CW1/15 has been duly admitted by the accused in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Adverse inference should be drawn against the accused w.r.t the contradictions.
25. Hence, I find that the accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised in view of Section 139 r/w Section 118 (a) of the NI Act. Neither a hole has been punched in the story of the complainant, nor could the accused prove his defence on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities.
CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 28 of 29
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06
17:04:49
+0530
MS RITU KATIYAL Vs. SH TANUJ KUMAR
26. I further find that the cheque in question were issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable liability
27. Hence, the accused is hereby held guilty of the offence u/s 138 NI Act.
28. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
29. Let copy of this judgment be given to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on 05.05.2025.
Digitally signed by PARULPARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.06 17:04:54 +0530 (Parul Sharma) (JMFC(NI Act) Digital court02) NorthWest, Rohini New Delhi/05.05.2025 Note : This judgement contains 29 Pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.CC NI Act No. 1301/2022 Page No. 29 of 29