Delhi District Court
Ajay Kumar vs Manohar Lal Mehra on 24 July, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Poonam Singh
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 (NI Act)
West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
1.
Complaint Case : 4348/2018
number
2. Name & address of the : Ajay Kumar
complainant S/o Sh. Kailash Chand
R/o H. no. B-5/339,
Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi
3. Name and address : Manohar Lal Mehra
of the accused S/o Late Sh. Ram Chand
R/o A -44, Vijay Vihar, Phase
II, Delhi
IInd Address: Circle Office
Building, Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board, Rana
Pratap Bagh, Delhi
4. Offence complained : Section 138, Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Plea of the guilt : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : Acquitted.
7. Date of institution : 17.07.2018
8. Date on which : 14.07.2025
reserved for judgment
9. Date of judgment : 24.07.2025
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:06
+0530
CC No.41113/2016 Page 1 of 17
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the
aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant
namely, Ajay Kumar against the accused, namely, Manohar
Lal Mehra in respect of the dishonor of one cheque bearing
no.092930 dated 17.05.2018 for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) drawn on Central bank
of India, DDA Slum & JJ Wing, New Delhi 110002
(hereinafter referred to as the “Cheque in question”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Succinctly put, it is the case of the complainant that
complainant along with his friend namely Rashid
Choudhary was searching for a residential accommodation
for his family. Accused was a government employee in
DUSIB Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi and that the accused
came in contact with the complainant through one person
namely Mohd. Jabbar S/o Sh. Subedar for selling his built-
up property i.e. plot no. K 115, Mangol Puri, New Delhi,
area measuring 25 sq. yards situated in Mangol Puri,
Delhi. Accused suggested the said property and the deal
was finalized for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees
fifteen lacs only). Complainant agreed to purchase the
abovesaid property and the earnest money (bayana) of Rs.
4 lacs, was paid to the accused in cash on 05.04.2018 in
presence of two witnesses as well as Mr. Jabbar and duly
signed acknowledgment slip. Accused also undertook that
he would be responsible if there is found any default/defect
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH in property documents and ownership of property.
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:07
+0530 Whenever the complainant asked about the original papersCC No.41113/2016 Page 2 of 17
of the abovesaid property the accused fell ill due to which
the complainant was in doubt upon the conduct of the
accused. Upon inquiring, the complainant came to know
that the owner of the abovesaid property was some other
person who was residing at the said property and property
documents were fake and fabricated. Thereafter, the
complainant requested the accused to return his earnest
money (bayana) of Rs. 4 lacs. Accused tried to deny to
return the same. Thereafter, a police complaint was filed
by the complainant at PS North Rohini on 05.04.2018.
Police took the accused to PS North Rohini, where he
admitted his guilt and also undertook to return the earnest
money (bayana) of Rs. 4 lacs. An amount of Rs. 2 lacs
were received by the complainant in cash and for the
balance payment of Rs. 2 Lacs accused issued the cheque
bearing number 092930 dated 17.05.2018 drawn on
Central bank of India, DDA Slum & JJ Wing i.e. the
cheque in question. The accused asked the complainant to
present the cheque in the bank after 10 days for
encashment.
3. Thereafter, when the complainant presented the cheque in
question for encashment, it was returned dishonored for
the reason “funds insufficient” vide bank return memo
dated 21.05.2018. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal
demand notice dated 26.05.2018 through speed Post and
Courier which was duly served upon the accused. Since
the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque in
Digitally
signed by
POONAM question within the statutory period of 15 days from the
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:06 receipt of legal demand notice, hence, the complainant has
+0530moved this court with the present complaint under Section
CC No.41113/2016 Page 3 of 17
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as the “NI Act“).
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND TRIAL
4. Upon prima facie consideration of the pre-summoning
evidence, accused was summoned vide order dated
17.07.2018.
5. Upon appearance of the accused, notice under Section 251
Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage, the accused stated
that the cheque in question was never issued by him to the
complainant. He stated that he had issued the same to his
friend Md. Mohd Zahid. He further stated that the cheque
in question bears his signature and the amount and date was
also filled by him but the name of the payee was not written
by him in the cheque in question. He further stated that he
owed no liability towards the complainant and that his
cheque has been misused by the complainant in connivance
with Md. Zahid. Accused accepted that he had received the
legal demand notice from the complainant.
6. After an application under Section 145(2) NI Act made on
behalf of the accused was allowed, the complainant was re-
called for his cross-examination. He was duly cross
examined and discharged.
7. Since no other witness was sought to be examined by the
complainant, complainant evidence was closed.
8. Statement of accused under Section 313 read with Section
281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 08.02.2024 whereby the entire
Digitally
signed by
POONAM incriminating evidence was put to him. At this stage, the
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:08 accused submitted that he knew the complainant only to the
+0530extent that the complainant used to visit his office. Accused
CC No.41113/2016 Page 4 of 17
stated that he did not know Rashid Chaudhary. Accused
further stated that he did not know who is the owner of the
property in question. Accused admitted that he was the
witness in the said deal of the property. He stated that there
was no actual exchange of money. He admitted his
signatures on the cheque in question. Accused further stated
that on the day when Bayana document was written,
complainant filed a complaint at Sector 7, Police Station,
Rohini whereas the Bayana document was signed in Sector
11, Rohini. The complainant did not verify the property at
all and he instituted the complaint within 15 minutes of
writing of the document which is Ex.CW1/D2. Accused
further stated that he was never called up by the police in
connection with any complaint. He stated that he did not
know about the transaction of Rs.2 Lacs which has been
stated in the complaint. He further stated that he did not
give the cheque in question to the complainant. Accused
further stated that the cheque in question bears his
signatures and that the other particulars have not been filled
by him. He stated that he had given the cheque in question
to one Mr. Md. Zahir and the cheque was given to him as
security as he was in need of some money. Accused stated
that he had retired in July, 2018 and he had some money
and so returned the money to Mr. Zahir at his request. He
further stated that when accused asked for return of his
cheque, Md. Zahir told that the said cheque was misplaced.
Accused further stated that he did not receive the legal
Digitally
signed by
POONAM demand notice. However, the address on the legal demand
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:09 notice was the address of the accused in the year 2018.
+0530EVIDENCE LED BY THE COMPLAINANT
CC No.41113/2016 Page 5 of 17
9. In his support, the complainant examined himself and
placed on record certain documents i.e. Cheque in question
being Ex.CW1/1, bank return memo dated 21.05.2018
being Ex.CW1/2, legal demand notice dated 26.05.2018
being Ex.CW1/3, original postal being Ex.CW1/4, Courier
receipt being Ex.CW1/5, Tracking report being Ex.CW1/6
and Ex.CW1/7, written acknowledgment dated 05.04.2018
which is Mark A, Police complaint which are Mark B and
C. Mark A was subsequently exhibited as Ex CW1.D2 and
Mark B was exhibited as Ex.CW1/D1.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE ACCUSED
10.Accused chose to lead the defense evidence. In his defense
accused examined DW1 Sh. Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Charan
Singh, PRO, Post Office Malka Ganj, New Delhi. He was
examined and cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant. Accused also examined himself as DW2. He
was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
11.Final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the
parties on 10.06.2025. Written submissions were filed on
behalf of both the parties.
12.Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the
complainant has advanced an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the
accused and his associate Md. Jabbar towards earnest
money for purchase of a property alleged to be that of Md.
Jabbar. It is further argued that an undertaking dated
Digitally
signed by
POONAM 05.04.2018, which is Ex.CW1/D2 was also signed by the
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:07 accused with regard receipt of an amount of Rs. 4 lacs and
+0530that he shall be responsible in case any fault is found on
CC No.41113/2016 Page 6 of 17
the documents. Subsequently, when it was found by the
complainant that the ownership documents of the said
property were forged and fabricated, the complainant filed
a police complaint dated 05.04.2018, which is
Ex.CW1/D1. It is further argued that the police in the
instant case said that the matter be settled between the
parties. Consequently, it is argued that the complainant
received an amount of rs. 2 lakhs in cash and the cheque in
question of the complainant towards repayment of the
remaining amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and which was also
recorded in Ex.CW1/D3. Ld. Counsel for complainant has
further argued that the accused has already admitted his
signatures on the cheque in question and hence
presumption of the cheque in question having been issued
in discharge of debt or other liability arises in favor of the
complainant in terms of Section 118(a) read with Section
139 of NI Act. He further argued that the documentary
evidence placed on record by the complainant to the fact
that the complainant received no payment within 15 days
of the service of the legal demand notice coupled with the
admission of the accused, duly proves all the ingredients of
the offence under Section 138 NI Act. It is further argued
that the accused is raising only a frivolous and moon shine
defense and that the accused should be convicted in the
present case.
13. It is argued on behalf of the accused that the accused has
never taken any money from the complainant. It is further
Digitally
signed by
POONAM argued that he was only a witness to the property deal
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:06 between the complainant and Md. Jabbar. That his cheque
+0530in question has been misused by the complainant in
CC No.41113/2016 Page 7 of 17
connivance with Md. Zahir. The defense of the accused is
primarily two-fold. Firstly, that the accused did not
receive legal demand notice. Secondly, that there is no
legally enforceable debt or liability to the tune of the
cheque amount owed by the accused towards the
complainant and that complainant’s story has failed to
stand on its own legs. It is further argued that since the
complainant has failed to prove all the ingredients of the
offence U/s 138 NI Act, the present complaint shall be
dismissed.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
14.The following points of determination arise in the present
case:
1. Whether the complainant has been successful in raising
the presumptions under Section 118 read with Section
139 of NI Act.
2. If yes, whether the accused has been successful in
raising a probable defense.
THE LAW APPLICABLE
15.Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is
relevant to discuss the law applicable to the present
proceedings. To bring home a liability under Section 138
of the NI Act, following elements must spring out from the
averments in the complaint and the evidence adduced by
the complainant, which are:
“(a) The accused issued a cheque on an account
maintained by him with a bank.
Digitally
(b) The said cheque has been issued in discharge, in
signed by
POONAM whole or in part, of any legal debt or other
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
liability, which is legally enforceable.
16:26:08
+0530 (c) The said cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of three months from the date ofCC No.41113/2016 Page 8 of 17
cheque or within the period of its validity.
(d) The aforesaid cheque, when presented for
encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
(e) The payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of
demand to the drawer within 30 days from the
receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque.
(f) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the
payment within 15 days of the receipt of
aforesaid legal notice of demand.”
16.Once the other ingredients mentioned in the foregoing
paragraph are established by the complainant, then as soon
as the execution of cheque in question is admitted by the
accused, a factual base is established to invoke the
presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or other liability by virtue of
Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act. This is a
reverse onus clause, which means that unless the contrary
is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheque in question
was drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the
complainant had received it in discharge of a debt/ liability
from the accused. In the case titled Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, it was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that once the accused has admitted
the signatures on the cheque in question, then the court is
bound to raise presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
FINDINGS AND REASONING
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO.1
Digitally
17. The complainant who deposed as CW-1 has discharged
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH
SINGH
his initial burden on the basis of the documents mentioned
Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:08
+0530 hereinbefore. The accused has admitted that the cheque inCC No.41113/2016 Page 9 of 17
question was drawn on his account and bears his signature.
The reason for dishonor of cheque in question as
mentioned in cheque return memo Ex. CW 1/2 is “Funds
Insufficient”. The fact of dishonor of the cheque for
insufficiency of funds is not disputed by the accused.
However, the accused has disputed the receipt of legal
demand notice.
18.With regard to argument of non-receipt of legal demand
notice by the accused it is pertinent to note that the accused
has admitted his address mentioned on the legal demand
notice Ex. CW1/3 and postal receipts Ex. CW1/4.
Therefore, it emerges that the legal demand notice, being
properly addressed and posted by the complainant, as
proved by the original postal receipts and tracking reports
thereof is presumed to have been delivered to the accused
in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and the accused has failed to rebut this presumption.
19.Further, it is an admitted fact that payment was not made by
the accused within 15 days of the deemed receipt of the
legal demand notice. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the decision cited as C.C. Alavi Haji vs.
Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555 that a
person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the
summons from the Court along with the copy of the
complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously
contend that there was no proper service of notice as
Digitally
signed by
required under Section 138 NI Act, by ignoring statutory
POONAM
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the
16:26:08
+0530
General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the IndianCC No.41113/2016 Page 10 of 17
Evidence Act. Thus, the plea of the accused that the legal
demand notice was never received by him is not tenable on
this ground as well and is accordingly rejected.
20.Considering the documentary evidence led by the
complainant and the admissions of the accused, all the
other ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI
Act stand successfully established. Further, since the
accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in
question and the fact of issuance of the same from his
account, thus, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and
139 of the NI Act arise against the accused with respect to
the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability in favor of
the complainant. Accordingly, the point of determination
no. 1 is decided in affirmative.
21.The onus is now upon the accused to rebut the mandatory
presumptions under the NI Act by raising a probable
defense to show that the cheque in question was not issued
in discharge of a debt/ liability.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 2
22.In order to rebut the mandatory presumptions, the accused
has raised a defense that there is no legally enforceable
debt or liability to the tune of the amount of the cheque in
question against the accused and that the complainant story
has failed to stand on its own legs.
23.The complainant’s case is that the complainant has
advanced an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the accused in
presence of two witnesses and Md. Jabbar and that the
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH accused has signed an undertaking and acknowledgment to
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:08
+0530 that effect. It is case of the complainant that videCC No.41113/2016 Page 11 of 17
Ex.CW1/D2, the accused has acknowledged the receipt of
Rs.4,00,000/- and has undertaken to be responsible for any
default that might occur in the ownership documents. Per
Contra, it is the case of the accused that he was only a
witness to the alleged property deal.
24.It is pertinent to the note that Ex.CW1/D2 is an
undertaking signed by Md. Jabbar and that the signature of
the accused at point ‘A’ on Ex.CW1/D2, appear as that of a
witness only. Ex.CW1/D2 is an undertaking of Md. Jabbar
that mentions that he has received an amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- from the complainant and that he shall be liable
for any fault found in the ownership documents.
Ex.CW1/D2 is not consistent with the deposition of the
complainant that the accused acknowledged the receipt of
Rs. 4,00,000/- or that the accused has undertaken to be
responsible for any fault in the ownership documents.
25.Further it is the case of the complainant that the accused
has handed over the cheque to the complainant through
Md. Zahir the brother of Md. Jabbar towards the payment
of remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and that the same
was recorded between the parties vide Ex.CW1/D3.
Perusal of Ex.CW1/D3 shows that it does not bears the
signature of the accused nor does it record the presence of
the accused at the time of handing over the cheque. Further
Ex.CW1/D3 mentions the statement of the complainant as
“Nivedan yaha hai ki me Ajay kumar S/o Kailash Chand
dwara Sh. Manohar Lal Mehra ka Rs. 2 lacs ka cheque
Digitally
signed by
POONAM jiska number 092930 hai jo ki Central bani of India ka hai,
POONAM SINGH
SINGH
jiska Khata number 1220602815 hai. Mujhe yeh cheque
Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:07
+0530samne wali party ne diya hai aur jiska dinak 17.05.2018 ka
CC No.41113/2016 Page 12 of 17
hai”. It is clear that Ex. CW1/D3 nowhere mentions that
the accused has himself handed over the cheque in
question to the complainant in discharge of his liability nor
does it show the presence of the accused nor does it
mention that Md. Zahir who has signed the Ex.CW1/D3
represents the accused.
26.As regards the rebuttal of mandatory presumptions, it is a
settled law that the presumption under Section 139 of the
NI Act cannot be rebutted upon a mere denial but only by
leading cogent evidence. Same was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the decision cited as K.N.
Beena Vs. Muniyappan and Another; (2001) 8 SCC 458.
Further, the presumptions may be rebutted by the accused
either by leading direct evidence and in exceptional cases,
from the case set out by the complainant himself i.e. from
the averments in his complaint, in the statutory notice and
even the evidence adduced by the complainant during the
trial. The burden of proof is to be discharged by the
accused on a scale of ‘preponderance of probabilities.’
Same was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
decision cited as M/s Kumar Exports Vs. M/s Sharma
Carpets; 2009 AIR (SC) 1518.
27.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh,
SLP (Crl.) No. 12802 of 2022 dated 9.10.23 held that
“At the stage when the courts concluded that the
signature had been admitted, the Court ought to
have inquired into either of the two questions
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH (depending on the method in which accused has
SINGH Date:
chosen to rebut the presumption): Has the accused
2025.07.24
16:26:07
+0530CC No.41113/2016 Page 13 of 17
led any defence evidence to prove and conclusively
establish that there existed no debt/liability at the
time of issuance of cheque? In the absence of
rebuttal evidence being led the inquiry would entail:
Has the accused proved the nonexistence of
debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by
referring to the ‘particular circumstances of the
case’?”
28. In the case in hand, the accused has raised doubts with
regard to existence of his liability for an amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- towards the complainant. The complainant has
failed to show by cogent evidence that an amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- was advanced to the accused. The complainant
has only relied on the undertaking and the settlement
statement which are Ex.CW1/D2 and Ex.CW1/D3
respectively so as to prove the liability of the accused.
However, the accused in the cross examination of the
complainant has put Ex.CW1/D2 to the complainant and
has asked if the undertaking was given by the accused to
the complainant to which the complainant has deposed it is
in the handwriting of Md. Jabbar and has been signed by
the accused as witness. CW1 has further deposed that “it is
correct that it is mentioned in Mark ‘A’/Ex.CW1/D2 that
Md. Jabbar took Rs. 4,00,000/-” and volunteered that the
“accused introduced me to him (Md. Jabbar) and both of
them were counting the money together. The accused gave
the guarantee of Md. Jabbar by stating that accused is a
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH Govt. Servant and will not run away”. It is pertinent to
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:07
+0530 note that the testimony of the complainant is not consistentCC No.41113/2016 Page 14 of 17
with his version in the complaint where he has stated that
Md. Jabbar introduced accused to the complainant. Further
the complainant has himself admitted that CW1/D2 itself
shows that the accused was not a party to the alleged
transaction but only a witness to it.
29.The accused has also cross examined the complainant with
regard to Ex.CW1/D3 and has asked if the cheque in
question was handed over by the accused to the
complainant or not, to which the complainant has admitted
that the cheque in question was handed by Md. Zahir and
not by the accused. The accused has also cross examined
the complainant as to whether the word ” Samne wali
party” in Ex.CW1/D3 referred to Md. Jabbar only to which
the complainant has deposed that the cheque was brought
by Md. Zahir and that is why it bears his signature but the
settlement was arrived between the complainant and the
accused who was represented by Md. Zahir. However,
Ex.CW1/D3 nowhere mentions that accused has
authorized Md. Zahir to represent him or to handover the
cheque in question on his behalf.
30.The facts that the complainant has failed to prove
advancement of any money to the accused and handing
over of the cheque in question by the accused raise doubts
in the complainant’s story. It is imperative to understand
that in order to pronounce a conviction in a criminal case,
the accused ‘must be’ guilty and not merely ‘may be’
guilty. For an accused to be guilty, guilt should not be
Digitally
signed by
POONAM based on mere surmises and conjectures but it should be
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:08 based on cogent evidence. In the present case, the accused
+0530has clearly presented a defense that is more probable than
CC No.41113/2016 Page 15 of 17
the complainant’s story and consequently, the benefit of
doubt must go to him.
31.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court has no
hesitation to hold that the liability of the accused as on the
date of the presentation of the cheque in question is not
established to the tune of the amount mentioned therein.
Hence, this court has arrived at an irresistible conclusion
that the accused has been able to prove the non-existence of
liability by preponderance of probabilities by referring to
particular circumstances of the case. Complainant on the
other hand has utterly failed to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt qua the existence of liability of the
accused to the tune of amount of the cheque in question.
32.The onus has now shifted back upon the complainant to
prove the second ingredient of the offence under Section
138 NI Act, regarding the issuance of the cheque in
question for any legal debt or other liability equivalent to
the amount mentioned therein. The complainant has not
taken any steps thereafter to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt; this court has fairly arrived at the
conclusion that the complainant’s case does not stand on its
own legs. Accordingly point of determination no.2 is
decided in affirmative.
FINAL ORDER
Digitally
signed by
POONAM 33.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds the
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:06 accused Manohar Lal Mehra S/o Late Sh. Ram Chand not
+0530guilty of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable
CC No.41113/2016 Page 16 of 17
Instruments Act, 1881 and acquits him accordingly.
This judgment contains 17 pages and each page has been signed
by the Presiding Officer.
Announced in open (Poonam Singh)
Court on 24.07.2025 JMFC(NI Act)-04/WEST/THC//DELHI
Digitally
signed by
POONAM
POONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.24
16:26:07
+0530
CC No.41113/2016 Page 17 of 17
