Bangalore District Court
Manappuram Finance Limited vs Shridhar Babu Gudengadi on 19 May, 2025
C.C.NO.8077/2024
0
KABC030146232024
Presented on : 15-03-2024
Registered on : 15-03-2024
Decided on : 19-05-2025
Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:
Soubhagya.B.Bhusher,
B.A.,LL.B.,LL.M
XXVIII A.C.J.M.,Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 19th DAY OF MAY-2025
C.C.NO.8077/2024
Complainant: Manappuram Finance Ltd.,
Having its registered O/at: CINL65910KL
1992PLC006623 IV/470A (Old) W638A,
(New) Manappuram House,
Valapad, Thrissur, Kerala-680567,
and Having Branch O/at 6/5,
1st Floor, Near Govt. Hospital
Chamarajapet, Karnataka,
Bangalore-560018,
R/by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.Sandesh Gowda.G.P,
Phone-8095409565.
Email ID: [email protected].
(By Sri.Santhoshkumar.M.B.,Adv.,)
V/s
Accused: Mr.Shridhar Babu Gudeangadi S/o Babu,
Age: Major, R/at: Sea Bird Road Gudeangadi,
Karwar Baitkhol, Baitkhol, Uttara Kannada,
Karnataka.
C.C.NO.8077/2024
1
(By Sri.Vasanth Kumar.K.M.,Adv.,)
:JUDGMENT:
This case arises out of the private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for an offences punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w section 138 R/w section 141 of N.I.Act.
2. The case of the complainant's in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a company incorporated under the companies act and a banking company within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act. Further stated that in the course of its financial services, the complainant introduced loan for the benefit of their customers on the application of respective customers and upon executing requisite security documents by them. Further the accused had approached the complainant to sanction a loan for his urgent financial needs. Accordingly the complainant sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.75,000/- towards digital personal loan facility vide loan account No.60134 and he had opted for repayment mode, vide electronic clearing services by signing ECS/NACH declaration by authorizing his/her/their bank to clear the EMI from banker. Further stated that under the contract a sum of Rs.86,324/- was due and payable by the accused with C.C.NO.8077/2024 2 respect to the same had issued ECS/NACH transaction bearing No.CNRB7021605230007162 in favour of the complainant. Further the complainant was presented the same for encashment through its banker Axis Bank Ltd., Cunningham Road Branch, Bangalore, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient" on 28.12.2023. Thereafter, on 05.01.2024 the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The said notice was returned on 17.01.2024 as "Unclaimed".
After service of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w section 138 R/w section 141 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 26.02.2024.
3. After the complaint was filed, the cognizance of the offences under section 25 and 28 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 was taken. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 13.03.2024 to register the case in Register No.III and it was registered as a criminal case.
C.C.NO.8077/2024 3
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and he has appeared before the court through advocate and secured bail. He was furnished its necessary papers as complied under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant in support of its case have examined its Authorized signatory as PW.1 and got marked 06 documents at Ex.P.1 to 06 and closed its side. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted no cross of PW.1. Hence, the cross of PW.1 taken as nil.
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C, was recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil.
7. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the material placed on record.
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
C.C.NO.8077/2024 4
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the Summary of NACH debit Mandate-
Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the said legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that Summary of NACH debit Mandate-
Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4.Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 TO 4: These points are inter- related to each other and finding given on any one point will bearing on the others. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken C.C.NO.8077/2024 5 these points altogether for common discussion. The case of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the accused. Further in the course of its financial services, the complainant introduced loan for the benefit of their customers on the application of the respective customers and upon executing requisite security documents by them. Further the accused had approached the complainant company to sanction a loan for his urgent financial needs. Accordingly the complainant sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.75,000/- towards digital personal loan facility vide loan account No.60134 and he had opted for repayment mode, vide electronic clearing services by signing ECS/NACH declaration by authorizing his/her/their bank to clear the EMI from banker. Further under the contract a sum of Rs.86,324/- was due and payable by the accused with respect to the same had issued ECS/NACH in favour of the complainant. Further the complainant was presented the same for encashment through its banker, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient". Thereafter the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. Inspite of service of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence C.C.NO.8077/2024 6 punishable under section 25 and 28 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w Section 138 R/w section 141 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
11. In support of the case, the complainant's have examined its authorized signatory as P.W.1 and 06 documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 06. In the chief examination P.W.1 has repeated the contents taken by the complainant in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the Summary of NACH debit mandate issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.86,324/-. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 28.12.2023 informing the dishonor of the NACH as "Balance Insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:
05.01.2024. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the returned postal cover. Ex.P.5(a) is the returned legal notice. Ex.P.6 is the complaint.
12. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the NACH/cheque came to be issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has submits that from the evidence placed on record, the fact that the accused had applied for digital personal loan and same was sanctioned to him and he agreed to abide the terms and conditions. Further submits that C.C.NO.8077/2024 7 the accused had agreed to paid the said loan, together with interest by way of equated monthly installments and other charges. Further submits that after availing the loan the accused failed to honor the commitment and he became defaulter. Further after the repeated request made by the complainant, the accused has not paid any amount to the complainant. Further submits that the accused in order to repayment of debt/liability had issued the NACH debit mandate-Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. He further submits that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his NACH debit mandate drawn on his account. When he has not disputed the same, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act. He further submits that in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. Hence, the complainant have proved their case.
13. In order to prove the case, the authorized signatory of the complainant is examined himself as PW.1 in the form of affidavit and reiterated almost all the contents of the complaint and got marked the 06 documents at Ex.P.1 to 06. In the chief examination of PW.1 has specifically deposed that in order to repayment of due/debt the accused had issued the C.C.NO.8077/2024 8 NACH debit mandate in favour of the complainant. Further deposed that when the complainant was presented the said NACH debit mandate for encashment, same was dishonor for the reasons balance insufficient. Thereafter, the complainant have issued a legal notice to the accused, inspite of issuance of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the said amount. The evidence given by the witness/PW.1 remained unchallenged.
14. During the course of proceedings both the parties and their respective counsels have filed a joint memo of compromise. The contents of the joint memo are as follows;
"The complainant and the accused have settled their dispute out of court for full and final settlement amount of Rs.86,324/-.
2. The accused has paid Rs.20,000/- on 20.03.2025 through UPI.
3. The accused has also agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.66,324/-, being the one time settlement in the above matter and shall be paid within two months from the date of this joint memo without fail and the complainant has also agreed to receive the aforesaid amount being full and final settlement of the above transaction and he has not further claims whatsoever as against the accused.
4. In the event of default of payment within the stipulated period, the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the accused. Hence, prays to take this memo on record and pass the judgment.
C.C.NO.8077/2024 9
15. By filing the above said joint memo of compromise the accused has admitted the legally enforceable debt/liability as stated by the complainant in the complaint. By considering the joint memo of compromise and submission of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the accused, this court deems it proper to grant time to the accused for repayment of the amount to the complainant. Thus, material available on record clearly discloses that the complainant have complied all the ingredients of Negotiable Instruments Act and Payment and Settlement Systems Act. In view of forgoing discussions, this court is of the opinion that the complainant have established that the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 of N.I.Act. The joint memo of compromise filed by the complainant and the accused is sufficient. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the "Affirmative".
16. POINT NO.5: In view of the reasons stated and discussed on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence C.C.NO.8077/2024 10 punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused is hereby stands cancelled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine Rs.66,324/- (Rupees sixty six thousand three hundred and twenty four only) to the complainant within two months from the date of this joint memo and the said fine amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C,.
Terms and conditions of the joint memo becomes part and parcel of this judgment.
In default of payment of the fine amount as agreed upon, the accused shall under simple imprisonment for 03 months. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on 19th day of May 2025) (Soubhagya.B.Bhusher) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.8077/2024 11 ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.Sandesh Gowda.G.P. List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Summary of NACH debit mandate.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Returned postal cover. Ex.P.5(a) : Returned legal notice. Ex.P.6 : Complaint,
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.8077/2024 12 19.05.2025 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Sheet) :ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused is hereby stands cancelled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine Rs.66,324/- (Rupees sixty six thousand three hundred and twenty four only) to the complainant within two months from the date of this joint memo and the said fine amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C,.
Terms and conditions of the joint memo becomes part and parcel of this judgment.
In default of payment of the fine amount as agreed upon, the accused shall under simple imprisonment for 03 months.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.