Delhi District Court
Neera Dagar vs Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. ... on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRADDHA TRIPATHI, JMFC (NI ACT),
DIGITAL COURT-03, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF : CC NO. 8688/23
Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Neera Dagar W/o Sh. Sumit Shokeen
R/o 1235, Ramlal Panna Village,
Dichaon Kalan, South-West Delhi,
New Delhi-110043 ...Complainant
Vs.
Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised Signatory at D-39A,
Harkesh Nagar, Okhla Ind. Estate Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 ...Accused No. 1
&
Mr. Santosh
Director of Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
at D-39A, Harkesh Nagar, Okhla Ind. Estate Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 ...Accused No. 2
Factual Background
Date of institution : 01.11.2023
Offence Charged with : U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Notice u/s 251 of CrPC : 28.05.2024
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Digitally
signed by
shraddha
shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 18
tripathi Date:
2025.08.14
16:41:54
+0530
Date of judgment : 14.08.2025
Final order : 14.08.2025
1.These proceedings have been initiated by the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (hereinafter 'NI Act'). Briefly stated, it is the case of complainant that the accused approached her mother and the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs 3,00,000/-. At his request, the complainant transferred Rs. 49,000/- directly to accused no 2; Rs. 81,000/- to Anil Arya and Rs 60,000/- to Udai Raj. Further, the complainant gave cash of Rs 1,10,000/- to accused no 2. In this manner, the complainant advanced a total loan of Rs 3,00,000/- which was assured by accused no 2 to be returned in one year. To repay the same, the accused no 2 gave the cheque in question of accused no 1 company bearing the following details which got dishonoured vide return memo dated 07.09.2023 Cheque No & Cheque amount Reason for dishonour Dated 486197 dated 2,40,000/- Funds Insufficient 14.08.2023
2. Upon receiving the knowledge of dishonour of the above cheques, the complainant served a legal demand notice dated 27.09.2023 upon the accused requiring him to make the necessary payment. However, upon the failure of the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days, the present proceedings under Section 138 NI Act were initiated by the complainant against the accused.
3. To fortify her case, the complainant tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex CW 1/7 and relied upon the following documentary evidences:
Digitally signed by shraddha Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 18 shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:01 +0530 Sr. No Document Exhibit Number
1. Cheque bearing no. 486197 Ex CW1/1 dated 14.08.2023
2. Return memo dated 07.09.2023 Ex CW1/2
3. Copy of legal demand notice Ex CW1/3 4. Speed Post receipt Ex CW1/4 5. Tracking Report Ex CW1/5 6. Complaint Ex CW1/6 Case Proceedings
4. Upon the appearance of accused, notice of accusation under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'CrPC') was framed on 28.05.2024 and substance of allegations against the accused no 1 & 2 was accordingly explained to which the accused no 1 & 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The same was duly recorded alongwith the plea of defence.
5. Thereafter, upon permitting the accused to cross-examine CW1 under section 145 (2), NI Act, CW1 was cross-examined and discharged on 09.08.2024 and CE was closed vide order dated 09.08.2024.
6. On 15.10.2024, the Statement of Accused no 1 & 2 was recorded as per the terms of Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC explaining the incriminating substances, that appear in evidence against him. The accused no 2 explained that the cheque in question bears his signatures and he has filled the amount in words as well as numbers however the same was not given for the purposes of a friendly loan of Rs 3,00,000/-. He stated that the cheque in question was given to Kailash Devi. Kailash Devi and Anil Arya met him regarding a project for the NGO of accused no 2 for which they asked him to give Rs 6,00,0000/-. He Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 18 2025.08.14 16:42:07 +0530 gave Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of cash and the cheque in question to pay the remaining Rs. 3,00,000/-. He stated that no project was assigned to him and he was returned Rs 2,50,000/- from Kailash Devi. Later, there was a wear and tear in his relationship with them because of which the present case has been filed against him. Similarly, statement under Section 313 CrPC was also framed against against accused no 1 company through accused no 2 wherein he re-iterated the above stated defence. Post the recording of statement of accused, the matter was fixed for leading Defence Evidence. The accused moved an application under section 315 CrPC alongwith the list of witness. The brother of accused appeared as DW 1 and he was examined, cross-examined & discharged on 26.03.2025 and DE was closed vide order dated 26.03.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Submissions on behalf of Complainant
7. Ld counsel for the complainant submitted that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant to return the friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- advanced by the complainant to the accused.
8. Ld counsel for complainant submitted that of the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/, Rs. 49,000 were directly transferred into the account of the accused no. 2. Rs. 81,000/- were transferred in the account of Anil Arya and Rs. 60,000/- were transferred into the account of Udai Raj to be further given to accused no 2. He submitted that all these transfers were made via UPI. He submitted the cheque in question was dishonoured for reason Funds Insufficient.
9. Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that it is the defence of accused that he has paid Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant's mother, i.e. Kailash Devi. However, he has not placed on record any proof to show that he has made a payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 18 2025.08.14 16:42:14 +0530
10. He submitted that it is the defence of accused no 2 that he had given the cheque in question as an advance for a project. However, no reason as to why would someone take a cheque as an advance for a project has been furnished by the accused no. 2.
11. He also submitted that no written document or project report has been filed on behalf of the accused no 2 and this shows that his defence is nothing more than a moonshine defence.
12. Ld counsel further submitted that the accused has brought Mr Sanjay as a defence witness (DW 1). However, he has no role in this case. He submitted that even Udai Raj has not been examined by the accused who has a role to play in this case.
13. Ld Counsel submitted that despite the service of legal demand notice, the accused failed to make the payment
14. Ld counsel also submitted that the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. It has also been submitted by Ld counsel that in lieu of the presumptions of Section 139, NI Act in favour of the complainant and the fact that the same remain unrebutted, all the ingredients under Section 138 NI Act have been duly met and the liability of the accused has been established and thus he be convicted of the offence.
Submissions on behalf of Accused
15. Ld counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has never met the complainant and he only knows the mother of complainant.
16. Ld Counsel for accused submitted that no receipt or written agreement has been placed on record, which shows that the complainant has advanced Rs. 3,00,000/- to accused no. 2.
Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:20 +0530
17. Ld counsel for accused no. 2 submitted that the accused only knows the mother of complainant and has no relation with the complainant.
18. Ld counsel argued that the complainant has failed to explain if loan was demanded by accused no 2, why was it transferred into different bank accounts of different persons. He submitted that as no justification to this method of payment as explained by the complainant has been placed on record. It shows that the entire story of the complainant is concocted and false.
19. Ld counsel further brought the court's attention to the fact that the complainant has failed to explain how Udai Raj and Anil Arya are related to the accused no 2 in whose accounts the complainant alleges to have transferred partial loan amount. The loan amount is alleged to have been given to accused no 2 which raises a doubt on the fact whether any loan was actually advanced to the accused no 2 or the money which the complainant shows to have transferred to these two persons was in fact transferred for onward transmission to accused no 2.
20. Ld counsel for accused submitted that the accused has been consistent in his defence, where at every stage he has stated that the cheque in question was given at the request of complainant's mother for the purposes of grabbing a project in the MCD in the health department and the same was not given for the purposes of any friendly loan.
21. He submitted that serious doubts arise in the case of complainant as the complainant has failed to explain the relation between Anil and Udai Raj and accused no. 2 and the reason as to why money was transferred to them.
22. Ld counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NI Act to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Ld counsel submitted that due to Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:27 +0530 insufficiency of evidences of the complainant, he has failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and thus the accused be acquitted.
Analysis and findings
23. Learned counsels of both the parties have been heard at length and documents on record have been perused.
24. Section 138, NI Act was introduced with the objective of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. The provision intends to discourage people from not honouring their commitments by way of payment through cheques. To attract liability under Section 138, NI Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person 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 and the same be presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The 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.Digitally signed by shraddha Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 18
shraddha tripathi Date:
tripathi 2025.08.14 16:42:32 +0530 Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of cheque.
Fifth Ingredient: 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.
25. The fulfillment of first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient is not disputed. The cheque dated 14.08.2023 was presented for honour within the stipulated time and the same were returned as dishonoured vide return memo dated 07.09.2023 for reasons "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter legal notice dated 27.09.2023 was served upon him. The accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of the delivery of the said legal notice and the present case was filed against him by the complainant. Thus, the fulfillment of first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient is decided in favour of the complainant and against the accused.
26. Referring to the statutory mandate, as laid in Section 118 and Section 138 NI Act that once signatures on the cheque are admitted by the accused, presumptions under these provisions take the forefront. The presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 NI Act relate to the fact that the cheque in question was issued in lieu of consideration and for a legally recoverable debt/liability. The stipulated provisions incorporate the word 'shall', thereby making the presumption a mandatory presumption. However, loading the provision with the phrase "unless the contrary is proved" clarifies that albeit the presumption is a mandatory presumption, it is rebuttable and the onus to rebut the presumption lies upon the accused.
Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 18 16:42:36 +0530
27. Regarding the strength and nature of presumption raised under section 139 NI Act, it is worthwhile to peruse the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa vs Sri Mohan (2011 (1) SCC (CRI) 184) wherein it ruled, "As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:40 +0530 doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
28. Thus, it is a settled legal position that in order to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 NI Act, the accused ought to take the responsibility on his shoulders and clear himself of the cloud of legal liability cast upon him by the complainant to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. The effect of this presumption is that it shifts the evidential burden on the accused to prove that the cheque was infact not issued towards the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The accused can choose to do so either by cross-examining the complainant and complainant witnesses or by leading his defence evidence or both. In the instant case, the accused has chosen to discharge his evidential burden by adopting both the avenues.
29. In the instant case, since the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque in question, the presumptive force of Section 139 and Section 118 NI Act gets activated. Thus, what remains for judicial scrutiny before this court is whether the accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions under Section 139 read with Section 118 NI Act.
30. The premise of the present case is a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- advanced by the complainant and her mother to the accused. As per the complainant's version, Rs. 49,000/- were transferred directly into the account of accused no 2 and Rs. 81,000/- were directly transferred into the account of one Anil and Rs. 60,000/- were deposited in the account of one Udayraj to be given to accused no 2. It is also the case of the complainant that she gave Rs. 1,10,000/- in cash to the accused. It is the defence of the accused that he has not taken any loan from the Digitally signed by shraddha Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 18 shraddha tripathi tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:45 +0530 complainant. He defended himself by stating that he met one Kailash Devi through Anil Arya. Kailash Devi promised him to lend help in securing a project in the health department as the accused was running an NGO. For this purpose, Kailash Devi demanded a security cheque as well as cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- as commission. The accused handed over the cheque in question as a security cheque from his current account and the same was received by Tejpal. The accused stated that he did not receive any project and due to this reason, he demanded his cheque as well as cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- back from Kailash Devi, however, she failed to do so. Due to his repeated demands, Anil Arya paid Rs. 90,000/- to the accused via PhonePe. However, the remaining amount as well as the cheque was not returned by Kailash Devi. Therefore, the moot question that lies before the court for adjudication is whether the accused has rebutted the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt, i.e., the existence of friendly loan in this case.
31. In the instant case, with the gradual progression of trial, inconsistencies & loopholes surfaced in the complainant's case which remain unexplained & unfilled throughout the trial.
32. Firstly, the complainant has failed to explain the relation between accused no. 2 and Anil Arya & Udai Raj which may have formed the basis for her to tranfer money to them for accused no. 2. The complainant has further failed to explain the reason why partial alleged loan was transferred into the accounts of Anil Arya and Udai Raj. The complainant has also omitted to explain why the entire amount was not handed over to the accused by way of cash or account transfer. It was imperative for the complainant to state the reason as to why an amount sought by accused no 2 was transferred to two different people specifically when the accused no. 2 has denied the fact of taking a friendly loan. No compelling circumstance, justifying this manner of payment has been placed on record by the complainant. Failure to explain this creates a doubt Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:50 +0530 in the case of complainant, and upon the alleged fact that payments made to Anil Arya or Udai Raj were infact done to give loan to Accused no. 2. A mere averment that some amount was transferred to Anil Arya and Udai Raj is insufficient to conclude that it was so transferred to be given to the accused no 2 finally. The complainant has further not supported her case with any written agreement which could have explained the arrangement of lending of Rs. 3,00,000/- to accused no 2, via Anil and Udai Raj. In the absence of the same, it was incumbent upon the complainant to examine Anil Arya or Udai Raj as complainant witnesses to testify the fact of receipt of money on behalf of accused no. 2. However, the complainant has shied away from discharging this onus.
33. To lend support to her case, the complainant has placed on record screenshots of payment of Rs. 49,000/- to accused no 2; Rs. 81,000/- to Anil and Rs. 60,000/- to Uday Raj. However, the screenshots are not supported by a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter 'IEA'). The Hon'ble SC has clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantayal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, that electronic evidence shall be admissible in evidence only when accompanied with a certificate U/Sec 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter 'IEA'). The relevant paragraph from the ruling is reproduced below:
"If the original digital device in which original information is first stored is physically produced in court with its owner / operator stepping into the witness box, no certificate under Section 65-B(4) is necessary as the original document itself stands is produced in the court, but if the original digital device in which original information is first stored is part of a "computer system" or "computer network" incapable of being physically produced before the court, the only way of proving Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:42:55 +0530 the said information is in accordance with Section 65-B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65-B(4)."
34. In the present case also, the screenshots of payment should have been accompanied with a Sec 65 B, IEA certificate for it to be read in evidence. Since, such is not the case, these screenshots are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be considered for any purposes whatsoever.
35. Secondly, an inconsistency emerges in the case of complainant as in her complaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant has stated that she gave cash of Rs. 1,10,000/- to accused no. 2. However, during her cross-examination, she deposed that she gave Rs. 20,000/- in cash to accused no 2 and remaining Rs. 90,000/- were deposited in cash in the bank account of Udai Raj. A digression appears in the complainant's own deposition. Further, no proof of depositing of Rs. 90,000/- in the account of Udai Raj has been placed on record. Infact, at earlier stages, the complainant has always stated that she transferred only Rs.60,000/- to Udai Raj. This inconsistency in the deposition of the complainant herself remains unexplained throughout the trial.
36. Thirdly, it is the case of the complainant that accused no 2 had approached her mother and herself for a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is also her case that accused no.2 was known to her mother. In fact, during her cross-examination, she depsoed that it was her mother whom accused no. 2 approached for the alleged loan and from her mother, the complainant learnt about this fact. Thereafter, because accused no 2 was known to her mother, the alleged loan was advanced. It was essential for the complainant to have examined her mother as her mother's role is not divorced from the instant case. Yet, the complainant failed to examine her which creates a serious doubt in the case of complainant. The complainant has also failed to disclose the purpose for which the accused required the loan.
Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:43:03 +0530
37. In order to prove his case, the accused brought Mr Sanjay Kumar who deposed as DW1 who supported the case of the accused and stated that one Kripa Devi and Kailash Devi visited the office of accused no. 2 several times to collaborate for a health project on commission basis. He deposed that for this purpose, a security cheque was demanded by them, and accused no. 2 handed over the cheque in question. He also deposed that accused no. 2 had only filled the amount and not the complainant's name on the cheque in question and the accused no. 2 has not taken any loan from the complainant.
38. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the observation of Hon'ble SC in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54, "45. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This however, shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have been rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely, presumption of innocence as a human right and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same."
Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:43:15 +0530
39. It can be deduced from the above authority that the presumption as well as the burden of proof of the accused is to be delicately balanced and the balancing scale, undoubtedly must rest on the principles of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, justice and equity. As already stated above, the accused need not prove his case to the hilt but only to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Circumstances that pave their way in during the trial via oral and documentary evidences play a crucial role in placing the case of parties in context. In the instant case, failure to explain the relation and reason for transferring money to Anil Arya and Uday Raj for accused no. 2 creates a serious doubt upon the very existence of any friendly loan, being given to accused no. 2. Further, the complainant's mother's role was crucial to the fact of alleged friendly loan as it was actually the mother who was known to accused no. 2 and as per the complainant herself, the accused no. 2 approached her mother for the friendly loan. Failure to examine her mother hollows the veracity of complainant's narration. The complainant failed to examine Anil Arya or Uday Raj whose testimonies were also crucial to prove the fact that the money if any sent to them by the complainant was for further transmission to the accused no. 2. Infact, in her complaint, the complainant stated that she met the accused through accused no. 2 Anil Arya. She stated, "...paid to the accused No.2 for some time due to urgent need of money in the month of August, 2022 of the accused for one year as the complainant met with the accused No. 2 through his friend namely Anil."
However, the cross-examination of complainant she deposed, "I know the accused no. 2 through my mother who knows Mr, Anil. I know Mr. Anil through my mother as my mother and Mr. Anil work together."
Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 18 2025.08.14 16:43:20 +0530
40. Thus, it cannot be concluded by a mere averment that the complainant transferred money to Anil Arya or Uday Raj to be given to accused no. 2. Even the mode of payment to accused no. 2 as well as Anil Arya and Uday Raj inadmissible for want of certificate under section 65B IEA.
41. Certain inconsistencies appear in the defences raised by the accused during the stage of notice framing as well as his statement and recorded under Section 313 CrPC. At the stage of notice framing, the accused stated that he had given the cheque in question for the purposes of security as commission and had given a cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- and upon not receiving any project from Kripa Devi as well as Kailash Devi, he demanded his money back but received only Rs. 90,000 from Anil Arya. However, during the recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused stated that he had given only Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to Kailash Devi and Rs. 3,00,000/- by a cheque and that he has received Rs. 2,50,000/- back from Kailash Devi. Despite these inconsistencies major loopholes that emerge in the case of the complainant cannot be sidelined and it cannot be concluded that the complainant had actually advanced Rs 3,00,000/- as friendly loan to the accused.
42. At this stage reference must also be made to the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Meera S. Chiplunkar vs Ashalata Rawji Kondkar Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2005, decided on 02.07.2015 wherein it held, "What must be clearly understood is that for acquitting an accused of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is not necessary that the Court must come to a positive conclusion that there was absolutely no transaction between the accused and complainant, or that, no amount whatsoever was due and payable by the accused to the Digitally complainant. As a matter of fact, when post dated or blank Tilak signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 18 2025.08.14 16:43:25 +0530 13/15 (4)APEAL-888-05 cheques are issued and issuance of cheque is not in dispute, it would be difficult to accept that there would be absolutely no transaction between the parties, but that does not solve the problem. There may be transactions which are of a totally different nature than projected by the complainant in the complaint, or in the evidence. The real nature of the transaction is quite often suppressed, because the disclosure thereof might invite a scrutiny of the legality of the transaction and create further legal complications, or enable the accused to raise a probable defence.
Therefore, in respect of offences under section 138 of the Act, the Court cannot hold an accused guilty only because it comes to the conclusion that there must have been some understanding or transaction between the parties, and the accused is falsely claiming that there was no transaction whatsoever. The Court must be satisfied that the entire amount mentioned in the cheque was due and payable."
43. The above ruling must be read in conjunction with the settled principle of criminal law that culpability can be attracted only when the case of the complainant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. For the same, it is important that the case of complainant stands on its own legs. The complainant cannot be given the benefit of inconsistencies that may occur in the case of the accused specifically when the complainant's case itself suffers from major loopholes. To hold an accused guilty, he 'must be guilty' and not 'may be guilty'. The extent of burden of proof upon the accused is only to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. This means that accused may not prove his case to the hilt, but only outline the existence of circumstances, which, in the eyes of any reasonable person can be said to have existed and the same is sufficient to create a doubt in the complainant case. For reasons already stated above doubts are created Digitally signed by shraddha shraddha tripathi Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 18 tripathi Date:
2025.08.14 16:43:30 +0530 in the case of complainant. Further a probable defence is raised by the accused, in the light of which it cannot be concluded with certainty that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to accused no.
2. As the probability of such defence cannot be ruled out, the benefit of this doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, the fact of advancement of a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to accused no. 2 remains unproven.
Accordingly, the fulfillment of second ingredient is decided in favour of the accused and against the complainant.
44. In the teeth of the above analysis, I have no hesitation in opining that the accused has successfully created a doubt in the case of complainant and the second ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act remains unfulfilled. The same is decided in favour of the accused and against the complainant.
Conclusion
45. All the legal requirements constituting an offence under Section 138 NI Act are cumulative in nature. As the second legal requirement has not been proved in favour of complainant, the ingredients necessary to bring home the guilt of accused remain incomplete. Accordingly, accused no. 1 Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and accused no. 2 Mr. Santosh is hereby held 'not guilty' and consequently acquitted of the offence under Section 138 NI Act.
46. This judgment contains 18 pages. This judgment has been pronounced by the undersigned in the open court and each page bears the signatures of the undersigned.
Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court. shraddha by shraddha tripathi tripathi Date: 2025.08.14 16:43:43 +0530 (Shraddha Tripathi) JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court-03 (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi, 14.08.2025 Neera Dagar Vs. Reloonsan Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 18