Bangalore District Court
Kavyashree vs Parameshwara Murthy M on 20 August, 2025
CC.No.14618/2023
KABC030264462023
Presented on : 27-06-2023
Registered on : 27-06-2023
Decided on : 20-08-2025
Duration : 2 years, 1 months, 23 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 20th day of August 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.14618/2023
Smt.Kavyashree
W/o Sri.Pradeep Kumar
Aged about 28 years
R/at No.4, 18th Main,
Shivarama Karanth Road,
Chikallasandra,
Bengaluru - 560061.
....Complainant
(By Sri N.S.Shivashankar., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.14618/2023
Sri.Parameshwara Murthy.M
Aged about 67 years
R/at No.170, 4th A Cross, 3rd Main Road,
CFTRI Layout, Bogadi II Stage,
Mysuru - 570026.
.... Accused
(By Sri K.H.Somasekhara., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 27.06.2023
Date of closing evidence : 26.06.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3 C.C.14618/2023
2. Factual matrix of the complainant's case is as under:
The accused's wife Smt.Sumitra is the owner of the house property bearing No.5, Ashriwada, 18th Main Road, Shivarama Karanth Road, Near Chikkallasandra Bus Stop, Chikkallansandra, Bengaluru, it was vacant. The complainant and her mother-in-law Smt.Radha and her husband Sri.Pradeep Kumar have approached the accused and his wife and requested them to let out the property on monthly rent and same was accepted by the accused and wife of the accused and they have entered into rent agreement dated 01.03.2021 in the name of Smt.Radha i.e. mother-in-law of the complainant. On behalf of the complainant's mother-in-law the complainant has paid rent to the bank account of the wife of the accused and it was received without any objection. The complainant has paid Rs.5 lakhs as advance security 4 C.C.14618/2023 deposit to the wife of the accused, which was agreed to return at the time of termination of the lease period. In the month of 2023, the complainant has vacated the premises and accused's wife has agreed to terminate the rent agreement. On behalf of the wife of the accused, the accused present on the date of vacating the premises.
3. The accused admitting the liability of his wife and after deducting the applicable deductions and after physical inspection of the premises, the accused has signed and issued cheque bearing No.407494 dated 03.03.2023 for Rs.4,59,590/-, drawn on Canara Bank, Padmanabhangar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant towards repayment of advance amount received by the wife of accused. Thereafter, the accused sent message to the complainant's husband stating that accused is liable to pay only Rs.3,34,590/-, but not Rs.4,59,590/- and also transferred a sum of Rs.3,34,590/- 5 C.C.14618/2023 to the complainant's husband account without his consent. As the mark of protest, complainant's husband has replied to the accused that he will hold the amount subject to accused honouring the said cheque and also requested to honour the cheque.
4. The cheque was presented to the bank on 03.03.2023, but it got dishonoured for 'Funds insufficient' vide memo dated 06.03.2023. The complainant got issued legal notice on 21.03.2023 demanding the accused to make payment amount within 15 days and it has been served on the accused on 28.03.2023. However, the accused gave an untenable reply dated 10.04.2023, but not paid the cheque amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint.
5. After receiving the complaint, this court has meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence 6 C.C.14618/2023 punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
6. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-10. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
7. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared through his counsel and applied for bail. He was enlarged on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over to the accused in the language known to him, for which he pleaded not guilty.
8. As per the direction of Hon'ble supreme court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant 7 C.C.14618/2023 evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross- examined PW.1. Thereafter the complainant closed her side of evidence.
9. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide order dated 21.12.2024 and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of PW.1 and the documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. He denied all incriminating evidence.
10. In order to substantiate his defense, the accused got himself examined as DW.1. DW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the learned counsel for the complainant.
8 C.C.14618/2023
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the side and perused the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record.
12. Points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.407494 dated 03.03.2023 for Rs.4,59,590/-, drawn on The Canara Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, it was dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" in the account maintained by the accused, then in-spite of issuing demand notice to the Accused and in complying with statutory requirement under Negotiable Instrument Act, Accused did not repay the cheque amount, thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?9 C.C.14618/2023
2. What Order?
13. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
14. POINT NO.I:- In essence the case of the complainant is that she occupied the premises of the accused on rent and entered into rental agreement dated 01.03.2021 and in pursuant thereto gave Rs.5 lakhs as advance rent amount to the accused. The complainant has vacated the premises in March 2023 and for repayment of the advance amount, after deducting the applicable deductions, the accused has issued cheque in question for Rs.4,59,590/-. Thereafter, the accused has sent a message to the husband of the complainant stating that he has to pay only Rs.3,34,590/- and transferred it to the account of the husband of the 10 C.C.14618/2023 complainant, without his consent stating that he is liable to pay only that amount and not the cheque amount. However, the complainant and her husband have not accepted it and presented the cheque on 04.03.2023, but it got dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Despite of giving notice, the accused has not repaid the amount. Hence the present complaint.
15. To substantiate her case the complainant stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. She has got marked Ex.P1 to P10. She has produced the cheque issued by accused and the same is marked as Ex.P-1, the signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P- 1(a), copy of bank memo is marked as Ex.P-2, copy of demand notice dated: 21.03.2023 is marked as Ex.P-3, copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-4, copy of the postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P-5, copy of reply notice is marked as Ex.P-6, postal cover is marked as Ex.P- 11 C.C.14618/2023 7, copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-8, copy of rental agreement is marked as Ex.P-9 and complaint is marked as Ex.P-10.
16. Defense of the accused is as follows:
The accused has contended that the complainant has not given 3 months prior notice before vacating the premises as per the rent agreement and without intimation to the accused, the complainant has vacated the premises and called over phone and intimated the same and also requested to repay the rent advance amount. At that time, the accused was residing in Mysuru, he travelled to Bengaluru to visit the house. Upon arrival, he found the premises in poor condition, with significant damage. The property had been vacated without proper cleaning, and numerous damages had been caused to the premises. When it was intimated to the complainant, she told that she will get it cleaned within 3 days and also 12 C.C.14618/2023 repair the damages and on that assurance, he has given cheque for Rs.4,59,560/- after deducting the outstanding rental due with enhanced rent Rs.5% for 2 months. However, the complainant has not cleaned the house and not repaired the damages. Therefore, he has given stop payment instructions to his banker.
17. After receiving the contractor's estimate, he learn't that the repair costs amounted to Rs. 1,25,000/-. Therefore, he requested to pay the said amount, but the complainant has denied for the same. He has sent the repair estimation letter through what's app to the complainant, but she has not responded to it. Therefore, on 06.03.2023 he has sent Rs.3,34,590/- through RTGS after deducting the repair cost of Rs.1,25,000/- with enhanced rent due of 2 months. Therefore, he is not liable to pay cheque amount. Hence, on these grounds, accused prays to acquit him from this case.
13 C.C.14618/2023
18. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118 reads as here: - "That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
19. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as here: - "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in sec 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability."
20. Combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part 14 C.C.14618/2023 of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defense.
21. The complainant reiterated the contents of compliant in her chief-examination and during cross- examination she deposed that she is residing in the house situated near to earlier rented house of the accused. She has not read the contents of the rental agreement wherein there is condition of giving 3 months prior notice before vacating the house. She denied that without giving intimation to the owner, she has vacated rental premises. She deposed that per month she was paying Rs.36,750/- rent and she has vacated the said house on 01.03.2022, till then she has paid the rent. She denied the suggestion that she has not paid the rent till 01.03.2022. She pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that there is condition in the 15 C.C.14618/2023 rent agreement to repair the damages caused to the house while vacating the house. She admits while vacating the house, though she has not intimated to the accused, the accused himself got to know about the same and came near the house. She denied that time the accused shown the damages and asked to get it repaired to her. She deposed that she has given Rs.5 lakhs as advance rent amount to the wife of the accused by name Smt.Sumithra. She deposed that she has vacated the house on 01.03.2022. She denied the suggestion that she has not vacated the house on the said date.
22. She admitted that owner of the house has deducted the one months' rent in the advance rent amount and given cheque for Rs.4,59,590/-. She denied the suggetion that on the next date of vacating the house she called to accused and told that she will not repair the damages of the house. That time the accused told her 16 C.C.14618/2023 that unless the damages are repaired , he will not honour the cheque. She admits that after deducting the repair expenses, the accused has transferred Rs.3,34,590/- to her husband's account and also sent photos of the damages caused to the house through what's app. She deposed that she is not aware that accused has sent message that repair costs comes to Rs.1,25,000/-. She deposed that message might have been sent to her husband, but not to her. She does not know that accused has given reply to the demand notice. She admitted that the photographs of the rented premises at Ex.D1 to D8 . When the counsel for the accused shown the photograph and suggested to PW1 that wash basin has been damaged, PW1 deposed that it is not damaged but it got dirty and the accused has taken the cleaning charges for the same. She deposed that gas geyser was already dismantled at the time when she went to the premises 17 C.C.14618/2023 and it was intimated to the accused. She deposed that tiles was broken in the car parking before she entered the premises. She deposed that complainant has taken cleaning charges from her.
23. When the counsel for the accused suggested that rental premises area measuring 60 X 40 feet requires at least Rs.1,00,000/- for painting , PW1 deposed that while coming to the premises itself, she had painted the house and entered it. She denied that accused has deducted the repair charges, painting charges and one months' rent amount and for the remaining amount the cheque was given without intention of deceiving her.
24. Percontra the accused stepped into witness box and got examined as DW.1 and during chief-examination he deposed that the complainant has not given 3 months prior notice before vacating the premises as per the rent agreement and without to his intimation the complainant 18 C.C.14618/2023 has vacated the premises and called over phone and intimated the same and also requested to repay the rent advance amount. That time the accused was residing in Mysuru and he came to Bengaluru and visited the house and found it was in bad condition. The premises was vacated without cleaning and there were so many damages made to the premises. When it was intimated to the complainant she told that she will get it cleaned within 3 days and repair the damages and on that assurance he has given cheque for Rs.4,59,560/- after deducting the outstanding rental due of enhanced rent @ 5% for 2 months. However, the complainant has not cleaned the house and not repaired the damages. Therefore, he has given stop payment instructions to his banker.
25. DW1 further deposed that after getting the estimation from the contractor, he got to know the repair charges would comes to Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, he 19 C.C.14618/2023 requested to pay the said amount, but the complainant has denied for the same. He has sent the repair estimation letter through what's app to the complainant, but she has not responded to it. Therefore, on 06.03.2023 he has sent Rs.3,34,590/- through RTGS after deducting the repair cost and enhanced rent baalce of 2 months of Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, he is not liable to pay cheque amount.
26. During cross-examination by the counsel for the complainant the accused has deposed that his brother Jnanesh was looking after the rental premises given to the complainant and the said house stands in the name of his wife. He deposed that the complainant was residing in the house for rent about 2 years between 2021 to March 2023. He deposed that on 03.03.2023 the complainant called him over phone and told that she has vacated the house. He denied that about 3 months back itself the 20 C.C.14618/2023 complainant has intimated to him that she will vacate the house on 01.03.2023. He admits that after deducting Rs.40,410/- he has given cheque in question for Rs.4,59,490/- to the complainant. He denied that there were small damages in the house, but not to the extent as contending by him. He admits that he has not mentioned in the reply and in his chief-examination regarding when the photos at Ex.D1 to D8 were taken. He denied that the photos had been taken prior to the complainant entering the rented house.
27. DW1 deposed that he has given stop payment instructions orally to his banker. He deposed that he has not produced receipts to show that he has repaired the house after complainant vacating it. He admits that he has not produced the document to show that house repair cost of Rs.1,25,000/- incurred by him as alleged by him. He denied that the bank would have not given memo 21 C.C.14618/2023 stating 'funds insufficient' ,if he had given stop payment instructions.
28. I have meticulously gone through evidence, pleadings and given my anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed by both sides. Having regard to the evidence of both parties it appears that the acquaintance between the complainant and accused is not in dispute. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant's family had resided as tenants in the accused's house for a period of two years. It is an admitted fact that complainant has vacated the house of the accused. Further it is an admitted fact that the accused resides in Mysuru. The accused has unequivocally admitted that cheque belongs to him and he has issued it for Rs.4,59,590/- on 03.03.2023. He admits his signature on Ex.P1 cheque. Further it is an admitted fact that subsequent to issuance of the cheque in question of 22 C.C.14618/2023 Rs.4,59,590/- the accused has sent Rs.3,34,590/- through RTGS to the account of the husband of the complainant.
29. The accused has not disputed that the cheque belongs to his account and it bears his signature, The Honorable Supreme Court of India in "Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad" (2022) 1 SCC 742 under para 14 of its judgment reiterated that "once the cheque was issued and that the signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received the cheque in question in discharge of debt/liability from the accused."
30. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable 23 C.C.14618/2023 debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. In order to rebut the initial presumption the accused has taken various grounds and also lead his defense evidence.
31. The complainant deposed that herself and her family members took the house of the accused for rent in March 2020. Initially, agreed rent was Rs.36,750/-. She has consistently deposed that she has vacated the house on 01.03.2022. The complainant has produced the rent agreement at Ex.P9 and it shows that this rental agreement was entered on 01.03.2022 wherein it is shown that the rent for a month of Rs.35,000/- and in advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused admits that he has received this Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant. After vacating the house the accused has issued cheque in 24 C.C.14618/2023 question for repayment of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- after deducting charges.
32. The accused contends that without giving prior notice of 3 months as per Ex.P9 rental agreement, the complainant has vacated the house and informed to the accused on 03.03.2023 over phone, on the same day he came to Bengaluru for inspecting the house. That time the complainant has handed over the house keys to him. He has deducted Rs.40,410/- out of Rs.5,00,000/- and given cheque for Rs.4,59,590/-.
33. The said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient' as per Ex.P2. The complainant has given legal notice as per Ex.P3, same is served on the accused. The accused has also given reply to the complainant as per Ex.P6 on 10.04.2023. In para No.7 of the reply notice, it is specifically stated that 25 C.C.14618/2023 "on 03.03.2023, the accused visited the rented premises in Bengaluru. By that time, the complainant had already vacated the premises without cleaning them and considerable damage had been caused to the property. When the complainant shown all the damages, complainant had agreed to rectify/repair all the damages. Upon that condition the accused has given cheque in question for Rs.4,59,560/-. On next day when the accused requested the complainant to rectify the damages, the complainant denied for the same. Therefore, accused listed the damages cost to the house and sent message through what's app along with photos of damages to the complainant. Therefore, the accused deducted Rs.1,25,000/- as cost of the damages done by the complainant to the premises and transferred remaining amount of Rs.3,34,590/- to the account of husband of the 26 C.C.14618/2023 complainant. He has also given stop payment instructions to his bank for not to allow the cheque in question".
34. In his chief-examination also the accused has deposed that when he visited the house he found damages in the house and complainant has assured to get it rectified. He deposed that he has deducted enhanced rent balance of 5% for 2 months and given cheque for Rs.4,59,560/-. During cross-examination of PW.1 the counsel for the accused has suggested that accused has deducted one month's rent as repair charges and given cheque for remaining amount and same is admitted by PW1. However there is no whisper about deduction of enhanced rent as stated by accused in his evidence, while cross examining PW1.
35. The complainant denies alleged damages caused to the house premises as shown in the reply notice or photographs produced by the accused. PW.1 has 27 C.C.14618/2023 specifically deposed that accused has deducted one month's rent for the purpose of repair and other cleaning expenses and issued cheque for remaining amount. During cross-examination, the counsel for the accused suggested to PW.1 that the house premises measuring 40 X 60 feet requires more than Rs.1,00,000/- for painting expenses and PW.1 has answered that while coming to the house itself, she has painted the house at her expenses, as such she is not bound to give painting charges, after vacating it. However in his chief- examination the accused has not deposed anything about the painting charges of Rs.1,00,000/-.
36. It is significant to note here that accused has visited the house before giving cheque in question to the complainant. He was vigilant enough to deduct one month's rent before giving the cheque. Normal practice in the society is unless the repair charges are deducted in 28 C.C.14618/2023 the advance amount or damages are rectified by the tenants, the owners will not repay the advance rent amount. Indeed that is one of the reason why advance amount will be collected. Surprisingly, in the present case despite the accused has seen the house before giving the cheque in question to the complainant and noticed the damages, he has given the cheque for specific amount of Rs.4,59,590/-. If at all, there were severe damages to the premises, as mentioned in the reply notice at Ex.P6, then there was no urgency to the accused to issue the cheque for specific amount of Rs.4,59,590/-. He could have withhold the entire amount till the damages are repaired by the complainant or he had all opportunity to deduct such expenses before issuance of the cheque. Despite having such opportunity, the accused has not made any such endeavour to recover the repair charges, but issued cheque for repayment of the advance amount after 29 C.C.14618/2023 deducting Rs.40,410/-. Unless te reis specific condition in rental agreement, general practice in the society is one month's rent will be deducted for the cleaning charges or damages cost to the house. But in the chief-examination accused deposed that Rs.40,410/- was deducted not towards repair charges, but for enhanced rent balance of 5%. There is no proof to believe that the accused was due to pay enhanced rent of 2 months as contended by the accused. Even if it is momentarily assumed to be true, despite the outstanding balance and the fact that no prior notice of vacating the house was given to him, and despite noticing severe damages to the property, why would the accused be so generous as to issue a cheque? Such imprudent conduct on the part of the accused renders the defence untrustworthy.
37. Later the accused contended that as per Ex.P7 rent agreement , 3 months prior notice has to be given 30 C.C.14618/2023 before vacating the premises, but the complainant has not given such notice. While cross-examination of accused the counsel for the complainant has suggested that over phone the complainant has intimated that she is vacating the premises and same is denied by accused. If at all, the accused has not received prior intimation before vacating the premises then despite of knowing that damages caused to the house is not repaired, he could have withhold the cheque on the ground that the prior notice is not given, enhanced rent of 5% was not given and the damages are not repaired. Despite the accused had all opportunities to resist payment of the advance consideration on the ground mentioned supra, he had issued the cheque in question to the complainant. Such conduct of the accused is strange and same creates suspicion about the defense.
31 C.C.14618/2023
38. The accused has mentioned various alleged damages caused to the premises in his reply notice at Ex.P6 stating that the repair cost of such damages comes to Rs.1,25,000/-. Firstly, the accused sought Rs.45,000/- for taking BESCOM power supply underground cable from concrete pole to the house, meter junction box road cutting fees etc. When the complainant has taken such connection is not forthcoming and why the accused has kept quite while taking such connection is also not explained by the accused. Further the repair costs shown in point No.2 to 10 appears to be exorbitant and no proof is produced to show that much of expenses is incurred by him after complainant has vacated the premises. In some of the photographs marked at Ex.D1 to D8 minor damages are appearing, but there is no proof to believe complainant has caused those damages. The accused has deducted Rs.40,410/- from advance amount. Therefore, 32 C.C.14618/2023 he can get the premises cleaned and also get repaired if minor damages caused to the house. Apart from that if the accused is claiming repair cost of Rs.1,25,000/- same has to be established with proof before the Court. Who has assessed the repair cost is also not examined before the Court. He could have examined engineer or contactor who has technical knowledge about such repairs cost. He could have produced bills to show that he has incurred such expenses. It is not established when alleged photographs of the house are taken in accordance with law and CD is also not produced. Therefore, based on the whims and fancies of the accused, Court cannot accept the repair charges shown the reply notice of the accused.
39. The accused has deposed that after giving the cheque, he intimated the complainant to get repaired the damages of premises, but he denied for the same as such he gave stop payment instructions to his banker. During 33 C.C.14618/2023 cross-examination he deposed that he has given stop payment instructions orally. Admittedly, cheque has been dishnoured for the reason 'funds insufficient' as per Ex.P2. No proof is produced to show that he had given stop payment instructions to his banker and also not examined the bank manager to establish the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of proof this Court declines to believe that accused had given stop payment instructions to his banker.
40. In view of initial presumption drawn U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act burden lies on the accused to establish his defense with cogent evidence. Except selfserving testimony of the accused, no concrete evidence has produced to prove the defense. Accused has stated that he had sent message to the husband of the complainant intimating the expenses of the repairs, but copy of the messages is not produced before the Court. Therefore, 34 C.C.14618/2023 this Court holds that accused has utterly failed to prove his defense. Based on photographs alleged damages cannot be assessed. Because it might be dirty, but it's not damaged either.
41. However, the complainant has admitted that he has received Rs.3,34,590/- after presenting the cheque for encashment. Therefore, the Court has to deduct the said amount in the fine amount. The complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. With these observations court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
42. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of cheques who evade their liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court 35 C.C.14618/2023 in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii) that"(ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found." In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
43. Therefore, having regard to the amount advanced, time from which it is lying with the accused, and part payment made by the accused after issuance of cheque and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision, this court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed 36 C.C.14618/2023 with a direction to compensate the complainant for its monitory loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following .....
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,59,590/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Five Ninety Only), in default of payment fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for Six Months for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.5,54,590/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Five Ninety only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the 37 C.C.14618/2023 remaining fine of Rs.5,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses.
Rs.3,34,590/- transferred by the accused to the husband of complainant shall be part of this fine amount as per Judgment.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of August 2025). Digitally signed by Tejaswini K M Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.08.23
10:19:31
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Smt.Kavyashree 38 C.C.14618/2023 II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque. Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P-2 : Bank memo.
Ex.P-3 : Legal notice. Ex.P-4 : Postal receipt. Ex.P-5 : Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P-6 : Reply Notice. Ex.P-7 : Postal Cover. Ex.P-8 : Postal Receipt. Ex.P-9 : Rental Agreement. Ex.P-10 : Complaint. III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Sri.M.Parameshwara Murthy
IV. List of documents for accused:
Ex.D1 to 8 : Photos.
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini K M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.08.23
10:19:38
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
39 C.C.14618/2023