Delhi District Court
Kulvir Singh Gangwar vs Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd on 19 January, 2026
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF (CONVICTION /DISMISSAL /
REVERSAL OF ACQUITTAL / DISMISSAL OF BAIL APPLICATION)
________________________________________________________________
COVERSHEET TO THE COPY OF JUDGMENT
The convict has been informed that the convict may avail free legal aid facilities
for pursuing higher remedies, for which they may contact for seeking
appropriate guidance:
Delhi Legal Services Authority (South)
Address of the Authority: Room No. 309, Saket Courts Complex, Saket, New
Delhi - 110017
Digitally
Ph.: 9667992799, 011-29562440 signed by
JAYANTI
e-mail: [email protected]. JAYANTI CHANDER
CHANDER Date:
2026.01.19
17:53:06
+0530
Jayanti Chander
JMFC (NI Act)-07/South
District/Saket Courts/New Delhi
19.01.2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. JAYANTI CHANDER,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT) - 07,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
1 Complaint Case Number : Ct. Case No. 8562/2023
2 Name & Address of : Sh. Kulvir Singh Gangwar,
Complainant S/o Sh. Kailash Singh
Gangwar
R/o - H. No. 136/5A/22 Gali
No. 10, Ghandi Nagar,
Gurgoan, Haryana - 122001.
Also at House no. 99, Street
no. 3, Near Bandh Road,
Aya Nagar, New Delhi-
110047.
3 Name & Address of - :
Accused No 1 Proud Build Renewables
Private Ltd
Plot No. L-19-20,
Keshavpuram, Awas Vikas
No-1, Kalyanpur, Kanpur,
UP-208017
Accused No 2 Ms. Rekha (Director)
W/o Sh. Sanjay Singh
Katiyar
Plot No. L-19-20,
Keshavpuram, Awas Vikas
No-1, Kalyanpur, Kanpur,
UP-208017 JAYANTI
CHANDER
Digitally signed by
CT Cases 8562/2023 JAYANTI
CHANDER
Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 1 of 15
Date: 2026.01.19
17:53:16 +0530
Accused No 3 Sh. Varun Katiyar
(Director)
S/o Sh. Sanjay Singh
Katiyar
Plot No. L-19-20,
Keshavpuram, Awas Vikas
No-1, Kalyanpur, Kanpur,
UP-208017
4 Offence complained of : Section 138 r/w142,
Negotiable Instruments Act
1881
5 Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty
6 Date of institution : 26.10.2023
7 Date on which case was : 07.01.2026
reserved for judgment
8 Date of judgment : 19.01.2026
9. Decision : Conviction.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant Sh. Kulvir Singh Gangwar against the accused no. 1, 2 and 3, namely Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd, Ms. Rekha (Director) and Mr. Varun Katiyar (Director) respectively, in respect of the dishonor of cheque bearing number 000018 dated 18.07.2023 for an amount of Rs. 3,35,500/- (Rupees three Lakh thirty five thousand five hundred) drawn on HDFC Bank, Keshavpuram, Awas Vikas, Khanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "cheque in question").
JAYANTI
CHANDER
Digitally signed by
CT Cases 8562/2023 JAYANTI CHANDER
Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 2 of 15 Date: 2026.01.19
17:53:21 +0530
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Succinctly, it is the case of the complainant, that accused no. 3 (Sh. Varun Katiyar) and Complainant know each other since October 2022. Accused no. 3 influenced the complainant to invest money in his company and allegedly assured him to be appointed as director in his company. Thereafter, the complainant gave Rs. 2 lakh cash on 02.01.2023 to accused no. 3 and also transferred an amount online to the tune of Rs. 1,46,152/- in bank account of accused no. 3 on several occasions. Allegedly, accused no. 2 & 3 assured the complainant to be appointed as a Director in their company upon approval of corporate identity number for which form no - DIR12, i.e. particulars of appointment of directors was given to the complainant by accused no. 3. Thereafter, the complainant started work with the accused person on assurance of monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month till the approval of his appointment as a director by the government board. Despite, his service till March 2023, the accused did not pay salary to the complainant. The complainant demanded his money several times, and on 18.07.2023 it was settled as the accused persons shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,35,500/- to the complainant. Accordingly, in discharge of his legal liability the accused persons issued the cheque in question to the complainant with a request to not to present the same before 15 days.
3. On presentment, as per instructions of the accused persons, the cheque in question was returned with remarks "funds insufficient" vide returning memo dated 07.08.2023 Digitally signed by JAYANTI exhibited as Ex. CW1/2. JAYANTI CHANDER CHANDER Date:
2026.01.19 17:53:28 CT Cases 8562/2023 +0530 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 3 of 15
4. Thereafter, complainant sent a notice of demand, dated 06.09.2023 exhibited as Ex. CW1/3 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The postal receipt Ex. CW1/4 (colly), screenshot of email by which legal notice was sent to accused marked as 'Mark- C' and Speed post envelopes Ex. CW1/5 and Ex. CW1/6 are placed on record. Legal notice dated 09.10.2023 in hindi language which is Ex. CW1/7 (colly) is also placed on record. It is further stated that despite service of legal notice, the accused failed to make the payment, hence, the complainant moved to the court with the present complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (here in after referred to as the "NI Act"). The Complainant has placed on record original cheque Ex. CW1/1.
5. Upon prima facie consideration of the pre-summoning evidence, accused no. 1, 2 & 3 were summoned vide order dated 25.01.2024 and directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond.
6. Upon the appearance of the accused no. 3 notice under section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.PC") was framed against accused no. 1 and 3 on 18.04.2024 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The accused no. 3 stated that the cheque in question on 18.01.2023 and the date has been changed to 18.07.2023 without consent. The complainant contacted him to become a director in accused no. 1 company and the cheque in question was issued to Digitally signed by the complainant to manage and run the site at Adani Green JAYANTI JAYANTI CHANDER CHANDER Date:
2026.01.19 CT Cases 8562/2023 17:53:33 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 4 of 15 +0530 Energy Ltd, Bhuj, District Kutch, a no network zone due to unavailability of bank in 160-180 kilometers. However, the accused no. 3 himself withdrew the amount and the cheque remained with the complainant also, two other cheque bearing no. 000023 and 000024 were issued to the complainant to make payment to the supplier. Furthermore, accused no. 3 stated that the money received in the account of accused company was towards the expenses in order to show labor cost to Adani Ltd. Also, the complainant is in possession of ATM Card and cheque book.
7. Subsequently, upon the appearance of the accused no. 2 on 10.07.2024, notice under section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.PC") was framed against accused no. 2 to which the she pleaded not guilty. The accused no. 2 admitted her signatures on the cheque in question and stated that the entire business is handled by her son.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
8. On allowing the application under section 145(2) of the Act, the complainant stepped in witness box as CW-1 and adopted his affidavit of pre-summoning as his evidence reiterating almost all facts of complaint, stating all exhibits. Thereafter, CW-1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, CW-1 deposed that he was directly in touch with accused no. 3 till March 2023 and had telephonic conversation till March 2023. After having an offer for joining as a Director in October 2022, a DIN number was allotted JAYANTI to him on 05.01.2023. Monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- was CHANDER Digitally signed by JAYANTI CHANDER CT Cases 8562/2023 Date: 2026.01.19 17:53:38 +0530 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 5 of 15 decided after he received the appointment letter from the accused company. CW-1 deposed that he was working as a supervisor at the site till March 2023 and received the cheque in question in March 2023. CW-1 deposed that his bank account is on record and is marked at Mark- A. CW-1 denied all the suggestions put to him.
9. Complainant closed his evidence vide his separate statement dated 05.03.2023 and thereafter, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC
10. On 26.06.2025 the statement of the accused no. 1 through accused no. 3 & 2 under section 313, Cr.PC, read with section 281 Cr.PC were recorded wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons. The accused no. 3 reiterated the defence taken in the notice framed under section 251, Cr.PC. Additionally, the accused no. 1 stated that the complainant had given documents for becoming the Director of accused no. 1, however, the government portal was closed on 05.01.2025-25.01.2025. It was agreed that Rs. 50,000/- per month shall be paid to the complainant, however, the complainant did not work for the accused company and instead starting working for M/s Krishna Constructions. The accused stated that he was in Bhuj Hotel Stay when the alleged Rs. 2 lakhs were handed over to him by complainant. The accused stated that the complainant incurred losses in his work in M/s JAYANTI Krishna Constructions and has falsely implicating him to recover CHANDER loses. The accused stated that the cheque in question was given to Digitally signed by JAYANTI CT Cases 8562/2023 CHANDER Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 6 of 15 Date: 2026.01.19 17:53:44 +0530 the complainant on 18.01.2018 for site expenses filled by Sh. Manish Gangwar and has been fabricated by complainant.
11. The accused no. 2 reiterated the defence taken in the notice framed under section 251, Cr.PC and stated that she is not aware about the present transaction although she signed the cheque in question as the business is handled by his son.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. The accused persons led defence evidence. The accused no. 3 was examined in chief and cross-examined as DW-
1. DW-1 deposed that the cheque in question was issued to the complainant on 18.01.2025 for site expenses. The payment was made in cash to the complainant. However, the complainant did not return the cheque despite insistence. The complainant said he left the cheque at his home in Gurgoan. After 3 months of date of issuance of the cheque, it was assumed that the cheque is invalid. However, the complainant forged the alleged cheque and change the date on the cheque. The DW-1 deposed that he got to know about the dishonor of cheque after receiving intimation from the bank.
13. DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant. DW-1 deposed that the complainant was to be appointed as the Executive Director upon investment of Rs. 25 lakhs, however, the complainant did not make any payment. The opening letter of current account bearing no. 407905000868 was marked as Mark- DW1/C1. DW-1 deposed that ATM cards were JAYANTI issued to the complainant in the position of Director of the CHANDER company. DW-1 further deposed that the complainant acted as Digitally signed by JAYANTI CHANDER Date: 2026.01.19 CT Cases 8562/2023 17:53:52 +0530 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 7 of 15 Director at worksite Bhuj, Gujarat from 15.01.2023 to 25.01.2023.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. Final arguments were heard on 12.12.2025 on behalf of both the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused has admitted the issuance of the cheque in question and all the ingredients of the offence are made out the accused is liable under section 138, NI Act.
15. Learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no proof of payment of Rs. 2 lakhs by the complainant to the accused. The complainant never acted as the Director as the final amount agreed was never paid. The cheque was issued to purchase raw material at the site, however, the same was altered by the complainant by changing the month of January to the month of July by overwriting "1" as "7" in the column of date in the cheque in question.
16. Rival submissions have been considered and record of the case has been perused.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT
17. Before delving into the factual matrix of the present case, it is significant to underpin the essential ingredients to be established in order to attract the liability under section 138, NI Act as follows:
(i) The accused issued a cheque on an account JAYANTI maintained by him with a bank. CHANDER Digitally signed by JAYANTI CHANDER CT Cases 8562/2023 Date: 2026.01.19 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 8 of 15 17:53:57 +0530
(ii) The said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability, which is legally enforceable.
(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 cheque in question, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid.
(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.
(vi) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
18. The accused can be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act only if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Moreover, conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled in addition to above-mentioned ingredients.
With Respect to First, Third and Fourth Ingredient
19. The Complainant has adduced by way of documentary evidence the original cheque Ex CW1/1 and the return memo Ex CW1/2 mentioning reason of dishonor as "funds JAYANTI CHANDER insufficient". The accused no. 2 & 3 have admitted their Digitally signed by JAYANTI CHANDER Date: 2026.01.19 CT Cases 8562/2023 17:54:02 +0530 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 9 of 15 signatures on the cheque in question Ex. CW1/1. It is an admitted position in reply to the legal notice Ex. CW1/7 (colly) that accused no. 2 and 3 are Directors of accused no. 1. Hence, first, third and fourth ingredients stands proved.
With Respect To fifth and sixth Ingredient
20. Perusal of document Ex-CW1/3 reveals that legal demand notice was sent on the address which was stated to be the address of the accused in the cross-examination of DW1. Also, the accused has admitted receipt of legal notice in his statement of notice recorded u/s 251 Cr.PC. The accused has replied to the legal notice Ex. CW1/7 (colly) and reply is dated 19.10.2023. This court finds that despite due service of sum- mons in the present case, the accused has failed to repay the le- gal debt with 15 days of receipt of legal notice and subsequently, within 15 days of service of summons respectively. Hence, fifth and sixth ingredients also stand fulfilled.
With respect to second ingredient
21. As per the scheme of NI Act and recent precedents, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, presumption of law under section 139 of the Act shall be drawn. In the recent judgment, Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramaniyan,1 the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that:
"U/s 118 & 139, once issuance of cheque and signature admitted, it is required to presume that the cheque was issued as JAYANTI consideration for a legally enforceable debt." CHANDER 1 Digitally signed Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramaniyan by JAYANTI CHANDER CT Cases 8562/2023 Date: 2026.01.19 17:54:07 +0530 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 10 of 15 The same was re-iterated in the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee2.
22. To discharge the evidentiary onus of proof under section 102, IEA, the accused may rely on the complainant evidence to rebut the existence of legally enforceable debt as was enunciated in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan3. However, the evidence should create doubt to the standard of preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case the accused has led defence evidence in which accused no. 3 was examined in chief and cross-examined as DW-1 on allowing an application u/s 315 CrPC.
23. At this stage of final arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused has admitted the issuance of the cheque in question and all the ingredients of the offence are made out to hold the accused persons liable by way of presumption under section 138 read with section 139, section 141, NI Act.
24. Learned counsel for the accused persons argued that the cheque was issued to purchase raw material at the site, however, the same was altered by the complainant by changing the month of January to the month of July by overwriting "1" as "7" in the column of date in the cheque in question.
25. The point of determination is whether the Negotiable Instrument is inherently defective as the same was 2 JAYANTI Hiten P Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee CHANDER 3 Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan Digitally signed by CT Cases 8562/2023 JAYANTI CHANDER Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 11 of 15 Date: 2026.01.19 17:54:14 +0530 forged by the complainant. The main contention for Ld. Counsel for accused is that the date of cheque was altered from "18.01.2023 to 18.07.2023".
26. The court finds that firstly, the return memo issued by the bank does not mention any reason of overwriting due to which the cheque in question was dishonored. There was no such objection by the concerned bank when the cheque was presented in the bank. The alleged structural defect of the month being over written was not mentioned in the reason for return issued by the concerned Bank. It can be inferred from the return memo that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds which is indicative evidence that the cheque was not defective as per the bank with regard to its contents or any kind of over-writing.
27. Secondly, the accused has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the alleged forgery. The accused has not proved the fact of alleged alteration by any cogent evidence whether documentary or oral or expert evidence. Ld. Counsel for accused moved an application u/s 379 BNSS in which an alleged photocopy of the cheque in question was submitted. It is pertinent to note that the same was never placed on record at the stage of evidence. Furthermore, the accused failed to prove whether that document could even be considered relevant to be taken on record as secondary evidence.
28. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that there is no proof of payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to accused no. 3. Also, the JAYANTI accused has taken the plea of alibi stating that he was present in CHANDER Digitally signed by JAYANTI CT Cases 8562/2023 CHANDER Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 12 of 15 Date: 2026.01.19 17:54:20 +0530 Gujarat on the alleged date on which the complainant averred to have paid Rs. 2 lakhs in cash to accused no. 3.
29. The court finds that the accused has not produced any substantial evidence to prove the alibi. DW-1 has deposed that the cheque in question was issued for site expenses. However, evidence has not been adduced to show the alleged site expenses. DW-1 has admitted that Rs1,46,152/- were credited in his Bank account. The admission supports the case of the Complainant. The proof of cheque in question on which the accused number 2 and 3 have admitted the signature activates the presumption clause and liability under section 139, NI Act. The accused persons are burdened to rebut the same. However, no evidence has been adduced by the accused to rebut the presumption.
30. The DW-1 has admitted the board resolution of appointment of complainant as director Mark- DW1/C1 and the current account Mark- DW1/C2. DW-1 further admitted that ATM card and bank account in the name of the accused company were issued to the complainant. Although, DW-1 denied that the complainant worked for their company. The inconsistent statement of DW-1 impeach his credit. Moreover, the accused has not produced any substantive evidence to support his version.
31. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that the complainant never acted as the Director of accused no. 1. However, the accused has admitted the board resolution Ex. DW1/C1 appointing complainant as a Director. The court finds JAYANTI CHANDER that it is an admitted fact that the transaction between the Digitally signed by JAYANTI CT Cases 8562/2023 CHANDER Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 13 of 15 Date: 2026.01.19 17:54:25 +0530 complainant and the accused took place as substantiated by the bank account statement Mark-A (colly) running in 6 pages. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has worked in the company accused no. 1 which is also admitted the accused no. 3. The legal liability arises out of the work done by the complainant for accused no. 1 and the amount agreed to be paid by accused no. 1 to the complainant. The statements of accused no. 3 as DW-1 are riddled with contradictions in his cross-examination without any cogent proof.
32. Once, the presumption u/s 139 of NI Act is raised against the accused, the onus of proof is on the accused to prove his innocence. The oral submissions and statements of the accused are not sufficient to rebut the presumption. The Negotiable Instrument, that is, the cheque in question is itself a documentary proof of the alleged outstanding legal liability of the accused.
CONCLUSION
33. This court finds that the accused has not sufficiently discharged his burden of rebutting the case of the complainant of proof of the essential ingredients of offence under Section 138 of NI Act were proved as per law. It is an admitted position that accused no. 2 and 3 are Directors of accused no. 1.
34. Accordingly, all the accused no. 1, 2 and 3 namely M/s Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd, Ms. Rekha and Sh. Varun Katiyar are convicted of the offence under Section 138 read with Digitally signed by section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. JAYANTI JAYANTI CHANDER CHANDER Date:
2026.01.19 17:54:30 +0530 CT Cases 8562/2023 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 14 of 15
35. This judgment contains 15 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Announced in open Court on 19 January 2026.
Digitally signed by JAYANTI CHANDERJAYANTI CHANDER Date:
2026.01.19 17:54:39 +0530 Jayanti Chander JMFC (NI Act)-07/South District/Saket Courts/New Delhi 19.01.2026 CT Cases 8562/2023 Kulvir Singh Gangwar Vs. Proud Build Renewables Private Ltd Page 15 of 15