Bangalore District Court
Medhini Projects vs Murali Krishanan on 16 October, 2025
KABC0C0397352024
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025
Present : SANTHOSH S.KUNDER, B.A.,LLM,
XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C.No.61318/2024
Complainant M/s. Medhini Projects,
A registered Partnership Firm,
Having place of business at 4 AM-511,
4th 'A' Main, HRBR 2nd Block,
Bengaluru.
Represented by its Partner,
Mr.C.M.Dhanya Thejas.
(By M/s KNS Legal, Advocates)
V/s
Accused Mr.Murali Krishanan,
S/o Mr.Venugopal Mudilyar,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at H-1/229,
Madangir, Delhi-110062.
(By MM Associates, Advocates)
Offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
Final Order Accused is held guilty & convicted
2 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
This complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C,
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Complaint averments in brief:
2.1. Complainant is a registered Partnership Firm
represented by its partner-Mr.C.M. Dhanya Thejas. During
June/July 2020, accused met the Managing Partner of the
complainant Dr.H.M. Chandrashekar at Holiday Inn Hotel,
Race Course Road and introduced himself as the Director
of JJD Holding, Intl. Pte. Ltd., Singapore. He had again met
him in November-December 2020 and represented that the
said company is interested in acquiring 50-00 acres of land
in the outskirts of Bengaluru and requested to aggregate
lands.
2.2. Pursuant to the above, between December 2020
to March 2021, multiple discussions were held between the
accused and Managing Partner of the complainant at the
office of the complainant. Pursuant to the discussions,
complainant agreed to aggregate 50-00 acres of land in
Devanahalli Taluk for JJD Holdings Intl. Pte. Ltd.,
Singapore. The accused in turn agreed to pay to the
complainant ₹3,00,00,000/- per acre for aggregation and
obtaining permission for sale of land in favour of the said
company. In this regard, Memorandum of Understanding
was signed on 15.03.2021 between the complainant and
JJD Holdings Intl. Pte. Ltd represented by the accused.
3 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
2.3. In terms of the agreement between the parties,
the accused was required to send funds for the purpose of
aggregation of lands. However, he has informed the
complainant that in view of RBI regulation, he was unable
transfer funds from aboard to Partnership Firm's account.
He has represented that due to restrictions, he has set up
a proprietorship concern in India in the name of 'Rich
Exports Delhi' which would receive the funds. Accused had
further informed that on account of government
regulations, he would require permission to withdraw or
transfer the amounts to third parties. He had convinced
the complainant to transfer ₹25,00,000/- to accused
stating that the said amount is required to comply with the
regulations to release/transfer the amounts. The accused
had further informed the complainant that on compliance,
a sum of ₹80.86 Crore would be released to the
complainant's account, out of which the complainant could
deduct the amounts paid. Believing the words of accused
and reposing faith on him, complainant transferred
₹24,83,915/- to Rich Exports between 26.04.2021 and
24.05.2021.
2.4. Accused had again requested to transfer
₹1 Crore. He had convinced the complainant that if the
said amount is paid, he would release a total sum of ₹150
Crore to the complainant as agreed under MOU dated
15.03.2021. On such assurance, the complainant again
4 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
transferred a sum of ₹99,51,744/- between 05.08.2021
and 29.11.2021.
2.5. In November 2021, accused and his son had
visited the residence of Dr.H.M.Chandrashekar and made
representation to the effect that the release of funds is on
the verge of successful completion and that due to strict
lock down and restrictions imposed in Singapore, certain
permissions required from the Singapore authorities are
pending and hence, the funds could not be released. In the
month of January 2022, the accused again contacted the
complainant requesting for small amounts to be
transferred for the purpose of completing certain
formalities. Therefore, complainant again transferred an
amount of ₹4,80,000/- between 12.01.2022 and
25.02.2022.
2.6. After transfer of money, the complainant had
requested the accused to either honor the transaction as
per the MOU or refund the amount already paid. The
accused in turn informed the complainant that he is
acquiring residence-ship in Dubai and he would
immediately transfer the funds from Dubai. He had
informed the complainant that he is carrying on business
in gold in the name of BMK Diamond and Gold, and that
he had gold worth Crores at his disposal. He had sent
WhatsApp messages of gold in his possession and
documents in this regard. He had assured that upon sale
of gold, he would immediately refund the entire amount.
5 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
The complainant was left with no other option but to wait
with the hope that the accused would return the
complainant's hard-earned money.
2.7. In March 2022, accused had informed the
complainant that he had found a buyer for gold and this
time on account of custom clearance he was unable to
complete the transaction. In the mean time, accused and
his wife had visited the complainant and represented that
they are from reputed family and are facing certain
financial difficulties. Accused had convinced the
complainant that certain payment will have to be made for
custom clearance and soon thereafter, he would release the
funds. Wife of the accused informed the complainant that
she would stand as guarantor for the amounts paid and
requested to transfer amounts for custom clearance.
Accordingly, between 23.05.2022 and 10.11.2022
complainant had transferred ₹12,30,350/- to Rich
Exports. In all, the complainant has paid ₹1,41,46,009/-
to the accused.
2.8. On 12.08.2023, accused has sent WhatsApp
message to the complainant along with a PDF document
stating that he had received ₹1.1 million Euro in his bank
account. He was continuously assuring the complainant
that the he would repay the amounts paid by the
complainant. But, has evaded to pay the same one or the
other reason. All the efforts made by the complainant to
recover the monies went in vain. From the conduct of
6 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
accused, complainant realized that the accused had
intentions to deceive him. Therefore, left with no other
option he has filed criminal complaint against the accused
before the jurisdictional police station. After the filing of
complaint, the accused again approached the complainant
and assured to repay the entire sum of ₹1,41,46,009/-
along with damages of ₹31,54,000/- and in discharge of
the same, he has issued following cheques:-
Sl. Cheque Cheque Amount Drawn on
No. Number date (₹)
1. 006866 15.11.2023 50,00,000/- HSBC Bank,
Lajpat Nagar
Branch
2. 006868 -do- 50,00,000/- -do-
3. 006869 -do- 20,00,000/- -do-
4. 006870 -do- 21,46,009/- -do-
5. 000002 -do- 5,00,000/- Bank of
Baroda,
NRI New Delhi
Branch
6. 000003 -do- 5,00,000/- -do-
7. 000005 -do- 11,54,000/- -do-
8. 000017 -do- 10,00,000/- Emirates NBD
Bank,
Burj Khalifa
Residence B
2.9. In this regard, he has executed a MOU dated
15.11.2023 in favour of the complainant acknowledging
the liability and assured that cheques would be honoured
on presentation. Believing the assurance, the complainant
presented the cheques at Sl.No.5 to 7 for encashment
through its banker, viz., State Bank of India, Hennur
7 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
branch, Bengaluru. But, both the cheques were dishonored
and returned on 29.01.2024 with endorsement 'Payment
stopped by drawer'. Thereafter, the complainant has tried
to contact the accused on numerous occasions to request
him to make good the amounts mentioned in the cheques.
On every occasion, he made false promises and assured to
discharge the dues. Therefore, left with no other option,
complainant has issued a legal notice dated 12.02.2024 in
terms of Section 138 of NI Act calling upon him to pay the
amount covered under the dishonored cheques. The said
legal notice served on 17.02.2024. Instead of complying
with demand, accused has sent a vague and untenable
reply dated 28.02.2024 which was received by the
complainant's advocate on 14.03.2024. But, he has failed
to comply with the demand made in the legal notice.
Therefore, this complaint is filed.
3. This court took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Partner of
complainant by name, Mr.C.M. Dhanya Thejas was
examined on oath. As prima facie case made out, as per
order dated 23.07.2024, this court ordered for the
registering the criminal case against the accused and he
was summoned.
4. Pursuant to the process, accused has appeared
before the court and admitted to bail. After compliance of
Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, this court recorded his plea by reading
8 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
over substances of accusation. He has pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. Sworn statement of authorized representative of
the complainant is treated as evidence post cognizance
stage. Documents at Ex.P-1 to 16 marked for complainant.
6. Accused was examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. He has denied the incriminating evidence. In spite
of granting sufficient opportunities, he has not chosen to
cross-examine PW-1. He has not led defence evidence.
7. Advocate for complainant addressed argument.
No argument addressed on behalf of the accused. In spite
of reserving liberty to file notes of argument, he has not
filed the one.
8. I have perused the records.
9. Points for consideration:
1.Whether the complainant has proved
that accused has issued cheques, viz.,
cheque bearing No.000002 for
₹5,00,000/-, cheque bearing
No.000003 for ₹5,00,000/- and cheque
bearing No.000005 for ₹11,54,000/-,
all dated 15.11.2023, drawn on Bank
of Baroda, NRI New Delhi branch, in
favour of the complainant towards
discharge legally recoverable
debt/liability and the said cheques
were dishonored for the reason 'funds
insufficient' and in spite of service of
statutory notice dated 12.02.2024, he
has failed to pay the amount covered
under the cheques and thereby
committed the offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
9 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
2. What order?
10. The above points are answered as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order; for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: The case of the complainant is that,
accused has approached the Managing Partner of
complainant by name, Dr.H.M Chandrashekar
representing that he is Director of JJD Holdings Intl. Pte.
Ltd., Singapore and expressed his interest to acquire huge
extent of land in outskirts of Bengaluru and promised to
pay ₹3,00,00,000/- per acre. Complainant is contending
that accused has executed MOU dated 15.03.2021 in
favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused went on
asking the complainant to transfer the money to his
proprietorship concern in India by name, 'Rich Exports
Delhi' and that the complainant deposited a sum of
₹1,41,46,009/- on various dates. The complainant is
further contending that it is towards repayment of said
money along with damages of ₹31,54,000/-, accused has
drawn as many as eight cheques (including the subject
cheques) in favour of the complainant and the subject
cheques came to be dishonored on its presentation for
encashment and that in spite of service of statutory
demand notice, he has failed to pay the dishonored
cheques' amount to the complainant.
10 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
12. In order to substantiate the case, the
complainant has examined its partner by name, C.M.
Dhanya Thejas as PW-1. As many as 16 documents
marked through him. Ex.P-1 is copy of deed of admission
to partnership dated 27.05.2020; Ex.P2 is copy of
acknowledgment of registration of firms; Ex.P3 and 4 are
copies of memorandum of understanding dated 15.03.2021
and 16.11.2023 respectively; Ex.P5 is bank statement;
Ex.P6 to 8 are cheques; Ex.P9 to 11 are bank
endorsements; Ex.P12 is e-mails; Ex.P13 is copy of legal
notice dated 12.02.2024; Ex.P14 is postal acknowledgment
card; Ex.P15 is reply notice; and Ex.P16 is Section 65(B)
certificate.
13. As noted above, accused has neither chosen to
cross-examine PW-1 and not led defence evidence. Thus,
there is absolutely no defence to the case set up by the
complainant.
14. In matters relating to offence under Section 138
of the Act, the complainant has only to establish that the
cheque is genuine, presented within time and upon it being
dishonoured, due notice was sent within 30 days of such
dishonour, to which repayment must be received within 15
days, failing which a complaint can be preferred by the
complainant within one month as contemplated under
Section 142(1)(b) of the Act.
11 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
15. A drawer of a cheque is deemed to have
committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, if
the following ingredients are fulfilled:
(i) A cheque drawn for the payment of any
amount of money to another person;
(ii) The cheque is drawn for the discharge of
the "whole or part" of any debt or other
liability. "Debt or other liability" means legally
enforceable debt or other liability; and
(iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid
because of insufficient funds.
16. However, for constituting offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the stipulations in the proviso are to be
fulfilled. The conditions in the proviso are as follows:
(i) The cheque must be presented in the bank
within six months from the date on which it
was drawn or within the period of its validity;
(ii) The holder of the cheque must make a
demand for the payment of the "said amount of
money" by giving a notice in writing to the
drawer of the cheque within thirty days from the
receipt of the notice from the bank that the
cheque was returned dishonoured; and
(iii) The holder of the cheque fails to make the
payment of the "said amount of money" within
fifteen days from the receipt of the notice.
17. A negotiable instrument including a cheque
carries following presumptions in terms of Section 118(a)
and Section 139 of the N.I.Act.
12 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
(i) Section 118 of the N.I.Act provides;
Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments; Until the contrary is
proved, the following presumptions shall
be made;
(a) of consideration that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and that every such
instrument, when it has been accepted,
indorsed negotiated or transferred was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred for consideration:"
(ii) Section 139 of the N.I.Act provides
as follows:
'Presumption in favour of holder it shall
be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of a cheque
received the cheque of the nature
referred to in Section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability".
18. Thus, the combined effect of Section 118(a) and
Section 139 of N.I.Act raises a presumption in favour of the
holder of the cheque that he has received the same for
discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
19. In Krishna Janadhan Bhat V/s Dattatraya
G.Hegde; (2008) 4 SCC 54, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:-
"The presumption mandated by Section 139
includes a presumption that there exists a
legally enforceable debt or liability . This is of
course in the nature of a rebuttable
presumption and it is open to the accused to
13 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
raise a defence wherein the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested."
20. Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Kumar Exports Vs.
Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, held:-
"20. The accused in a trial under
Section 138 of the Act has two options.
He can either show that consideration
and debt did not exist or that under the
particular circumstances of the case the
non existence of consideration and debt
is so probable that a prudent man
ought to suppose that no consideration
and debt existed. To rebut the statutory
presumptions an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond
reasonable doubt as is expected of the
complainant in a criminal trial. The
accused may adduce direct evidence to
prove that the note in question was not
supported by consideration and that
there was no debt or liability to be
discharged by him. However, the Court
need not insist in every case that the
accused should disprove the
nonexistence of consideration and debt
by leading direct evidence because the
existence of negative evidence is
neither possible nor contemplated. At
the same time, it is clear that bare
denial of the passing of the
consideration and existence of debt,
apparently would not serve the purpose
of the accused. Something which is
probable has to be brought on record
for getting the burden of proof shifted to
the complainant. To disprove the
presumptions, the accused should bring
14 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
on record such facts and
circumstances, upon consideration of
which, the Court may either believe
that the consideration and debt did not
exist or their nonexistence was so
probable that a prudent man would
under the circumstances of the case,
act upon the plea that they did not
exist. Apart from adducing direct
evidence to prove that the note in
question was not supported by
consideration or that he had not
incurred any debt or liability, the
accused may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence and if the
circumstances so relied upon are
compelling, the burden may likewise
shift again on the complainant. The
accused may also rely upon
presumptions of fact, for instance,
those mentioned in Section 114 of the
Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions
arising under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Act."
21. In Rangappa V/s Sri.Mohan; (2010) 11 SCC
441, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, ordinarily in
cheque bouncing cases, what the courts have to consider is
whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in
Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the
accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption
contemplated by Section 139 of the Act.
22. In the case of Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa,
(2019) 5 SCC 418, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid
down by this Court in above cases on
15 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
Sections 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is
admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the
cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139
is a rebuttable presumption and the
onus is on the accused to raise the
probable defence. The standard of proof
for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probablities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open
for the accused to rely on evidence led
by him or accused can also rely on the
materials submitted by the complainant
in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of
probabilities can be drawn not only from
the materials brought on record by the
parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the
accused to come in the witness box in
support of his defence, Section 139
imposed an evidentiary burden and not
a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to
come in the witness box to support his
defence."
16 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
23. From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, it is clear that for the offence under Section
138 of the Act, the presumptions under Section 118 (a)
and Section 139 of N.I.Act have to be raised as soon as
execution of cheque by the accused is admitted or proved
by the complainant and thereafter, burden shifts on the
accused to prove otherwise. However, presumptions, both
under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act are rebuttable in
nature.
24. Coming to the case on hand, where in order to
prove the money transaction, the complainant has
produced copy of MOU dated 16.11.2023 at Ex.P4 entered
with the accused. In Ex.P4, accused is the first party and
the complainant is the second party. There are recitals
acknowledging receipt of a sum of ₹1,41,46,009/- by the
accused from the complainant on several dates and the
accused agreed to refund the same to the complainant
along with damages of ₹31,54,000/-. Under the very MOU,
he has issued eight cheques (including the subject
cheques) in favour of the complainant. Relevant portion of
Ex.P4 is extracted as under:-
"XXXX
RECITALS:
I. WHEREAS the First Party has represented to
the Second Party that he is the Director of JJD
Holdings International PTE Ltd, Singapore and
sole proprietor of Rich Exports, Delhi.
17 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
II. AND WHEREAS the First Party represented to
the Second Party that he was provided a
mandate by a multi-national company to
aggregate land in and around Bangalore City.
Based on the aforesaid representation, the First
Party induced the Second Party to transfer
monies to the First Party with the assurance that
the First Party shall entrust the aggregation of
lands to the Second Party.
III. AND WHEREAS based on the aforesaid
representations, a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 15.03.2021 was executed
between the First and the Second Party and the
Second Party transferred money to the First Party
and on his directions to accounts provided by the
First Party from time to time in the following
manner:
i. Rs.24,83,915/- to Rich Exports between
26.04.2021 to 24.05.2021.
ii. Rs.99,51,744/- between 05.08.2021 to
29.11.2021
iii. Rs.4,80,000/- between 12.01.2022 to
25.03.2022
iv. Rs.12,30,350/- to Rich Exports and Murali
Krishanan
In all the Second Party had transferred and paid
to the First Party a sum of Rs.1,41,46,009/-
(Rupees One Crore Forty-One Lakh Forty-Six
Thousand and Nine Only). The First Party hereby
acknowledges receipt of the said sum of
Rs.1,41,46,009/- from the Second Party.
IV. AND WHEREAS the Second Party with the
legitimate expectation of making profit from the
aforesaid transaction incurred huge expenses in
18 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
various forms, only to realize later that the First
Party had no such mandate for aggregation of
lands.
V. AND WHEREAS the First Party after receipt of
the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,41,46,009/- from
the Second Party, the First party failed to honour
his obligation and on account of the same the
Second Party suffered huge losses. Further, the
First Party on one pretext or the other was
delaying and protracting the refund of the money
paid by the Second Party to the First Party.
VI. AND WHEREAS the Second Party has lodged
a police complaint with the jurisdiction police in
Crime No.322/2023. The said complaint in
pending investigation with the Hennur Police.
VII. NOW, therefore, the First Party hereby
confirms that he was unable to procure the
mandate and the money received from the
Second Party shall be refunded in full along with
damages suffered by the Second Party.
NOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITNESSETH AS
FOLLOWS
1. The First Party confirms and acknowledges
having received from the Second Party the sum of
Rs.1,41,46,009/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-One
Lakh Forty-Six Thousand and Nine Only) in the
following manner:-
i. Rs.24,83,915/- to Rich Exports between
26.04.2021 to 24.05.2021.
ii. Rs.99,51,744/- between 05.08.2021 to
29.11.2021
19 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
iii. Rs.4,80,000/- between 12.01.2022 to
25.03.2022
iv. Rs.12,30,350/- to Rich Exports and Murali
Krishanan
2. The First Party agrees to refund the
aforesaid sum of Rs.1,41,46,009/- (Rupees One
Crore Forty-One Lakh Forty-Six Thousand and
Nine Only) along with damages of Rs.31,54,000/-
(Rupees Thirty-One Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand
Only) in the following manner:
i. Cheque number - 006866, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Only)
drawn on HSBC Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch
bearing Account No.053-114575-006.
ii. Cheque number - 006868, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Only)
drawn on HSBC Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch
bearing Account No.053-114575-006.
iii. Cheque number - 006869, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh
Only) drawn on HSBC Bank, Lajpat Nagar
Branch bearing Account No.053-114575-006.
iv. Cheque number - 006870, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.21,46,009/- (Rupees Twenty-One
Lakh Forty-Six Thousand and Nine Only) drawn
on HSBC Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch bearing
Account No.053-114575-006.
v. Cheque number - 000002, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only)
drawn on Bank of Baroda, NRI New Delhi Branch
bearing Account No.26380100007104.
vi. Cheque number - 000003, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only)
20 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
drawn on Bank of Baroda, NRI New Delhi Branch
bearing Account No.26380100007104.
vii. Cheque number - 000005, dated 15-11-
2023 for Rs.11,54,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh
Fifty-Four Thousand Only) drawn on Bank of
Baroda, NRI New Delhi Branch bearing Account
No.26380100007104.
viii. Cheque number - 000017, Dated 15-11-
2023 Amount AED - 44,195 (INR 10,00,000/- )
drawn on Emirates NBD Bank, Burj Khalifa
Residence B, Account number-1015791177701"
25. In addition to the above, in order to prove
transfer of money to the accused, the complainant has
produced its bank statement at Ex.P5 containing entries of
transfer of money to 'Rich Exports' on various dates. These
documents are absolutely not in dispute.
26. Ex.P3 is copy of MOU dated 15.03.2021 entered
between the complainant and the accused under which the
complainant has agreed to aggregate land to an extent of
50 acres to accused @₹3,00,00,000/- per acre. Ex.P12 is
the e-mail correspondence between the complainant and
the accused under which the accused has not only
acknowledged receipt of money from the complainant but
also agreed to return the same.
27. Subject cheques are marked at Ex.P6 to 8
which prima facie show that it is drawn from the bank
account of accused. Signatures of the accused are marked
at Ex.P6(a), 7(a) and 8(a). The said signatures have not
been disputed by the accused. Once signature of an
21 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
accused on the cheque is proved or established, then
'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such a
situation, the burden shifts upon the accused to discharge
the presumption imposed upon him. Thus, burden is on
the accused to discharge the presumption available to a
negotiable instrument under Section 118(a) and 139 of NI
Act. But, hardly any attempt made by the accused to rebut
the presumption.
28. It is evident from Ex.P9 to 11 dated 23.01.2024/
29.01.2024 that the said cheques were dishonored for the
reason 'funds insufficient'. After dishonor of the cheques,
complainant has caused a demand notice dated
12.02.2024 a copy of which is at Ex.P13. Ex.P14 proves
service of demand notice on the accused. Ex.P15 is the
reply notice sent by him. Under the said reply, accused has
taken a defence that the complainant has taken blank
cheques by coercion and force with the help of police
officer. He has also denied liability under the said cheques.
29. It is pertinent to note that in order to prove the
defence urged in reply notice accused has not made any
attempt, either by way of cross-examination or by adducing
defence evidence. Accused having admitted issuance of
cheques to complainant in his reply notice, burden is on
him to prove that the cheques were not issued for
repayment of any legally enforceable debt. Indisputably,
accused has not complied with the demand made in the
statutory notice. Thus, evidence on record proves that the
22 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
accused has issued the cheques towards discharge of
legally enforceable debt/liability and the said cheques
came to be dishonored and that in spite of service of
statutory notice, he has failed to pay the amount covered
under the dishonored cheques. Therefore, this court holds
that the accused has committed the offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, I answer Point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
30. Point No.2:-Punishment prescribed for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years
or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque or with both. Object of Chapter-XVII of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, which prescribes punishment
for the dishonour of the cheque is both punitive as well as
compensatory and restitutive. In R.Vijayan V/s Baby and
another (AIR 2012 SC 528), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that Chapter-XVII of the N.I. Act is an unique
exercise which blurs the dividing line between civil and
criminal jurisdictions and it provides a single forum and
single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability and
also for the enforcement of the civil liability i.e., for
realization of the cheque amount and thereby obviating the
need for the creditor to move to different forums for the
relief. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the
apparent intention is to ensure that not only the offender is
punished, but also ensure that the complainant invariably
23 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
receives the amount of cheque along with compensation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that a
stage has reached when most of the complainants in
particular the financial institutions view the proceedings
under Section 138 of N.I. Act as a proceeding for recovery
of the cheque amount and therefore, the punishment of the
drawer of the cheque for the offence of dishonour become
secondary. The said judgment is relied by Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in M/s. Banavathy & Company V.s
Mahaeer Electro Mech (P) Ltd., and others, (NC:
2025:KHC:25140).
31. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgments, sentence has to be passed. In the
presence case, subject cheques were issued under MOU at
Ex.P4 dated 16.11.2023. Since then, complainant is
deprived of cheques' amount which is rightfully due to him.
By taking into consideration these aspects, this court is of
the considered view that it is just and desirable to impose
fine of ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) and out of
the said amount, it is just and proper to award a sum of
₹29,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs and Ninety
Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant as
provided under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the
remaining sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)
shall go to State. In view of the findings recorded above, I
proceed to pass the following:
24 CC.No.61318/2024
KABC0C0397352024
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only). In default to pay fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
Out of the realized fine amount, a sum of ₹29,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs and Ninety Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining sum of ₹10,000/- shall be remitted to State.
Bail bonds executed by accused shall stands cancelled.
Office to supply a free copy of this judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of October, 2025) Digitally signed SANTHOSH by SANTHOSH S KUNDER S KUNDER Date: 2025.10.16 17:40:03 +0530 ( SANTHOSH S.KUNDER ) XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
25 CC.No.61318/2024KABC0C0397352024 ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 C.M Dhanya Thejas List of documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Copy of deed of admission to partnership dated 27.05.2020 Ex.P.2 Copy of acknowledgment of registration of firms Ex.P.3 Copy of memorandum of understanding dated 15.03.2021 Ex.P.4 Copy of memorandum of understanding dated 16.11.2023 Ex.P.5 Bank statement Ex.P.6 to 8 Cheques Ex.P.6(a) to Signatures of the accused 8(a) Ex.P.9 to Bank endorsements 11 Ex.P.12 E-mails Ex.P.13 Copy of legal notice dated 12.02.2024 Ex.P.14 Postal acknowledgment card Ex.P.15 Reply notice Ex.P.16 Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act List of witness examined for the defense Nil List of documents marked for the defense Nil Digitally signed by SANTHOSH SANTHOSH S KUNDER S KUNDER Date: 2025.10.16 17:39:56 +0530 XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.