Delhi District Court
Jagnoop Singh vs Sh Inamul Haque on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWNA RATTAN
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) - 10
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 08.09.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2026
In the matter of:
1. Regn. No. of Case : Ct Cases 5004014/2016
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW020110992016
3. Name of complainant : Sh. Jagnoop Singh
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
R/o H.no. B-32, Chanakya Place, Part-I,
Near Brahmkumaris Ashram,
New Delhi-110059.
4. Name of accused : Sh. Inamul Haque
S/o Sh. Rais Ahmed
R/o H.no. A-9, Gali no. 6,Murga chowk,
Vikas Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
5. Offence complained of : Under Section 138 NI Act
6. Offence charged under : 138 NI Act
Section
BHAWNA
7. Plea of accused person : Not guilty. RATTAN
Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL RATTAN
Date:
2026.02.16
16:27:37 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 1 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the complaint
filed by the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT
1. The accused came in contact of the complainant
through his sister Smt. Kamlesh Gulia, in whose
property/shop, the accused was a tenant and with the
passage of time, both the complainant and the accused
developed very good friendly relations.
2. The accused then approached the complainant for
seeking financial assistance of Rs 3,00,000/- as the
accused has to purchase a shop and thus was in need of
money and assured the complainant that the money will
be returned within the course of 6-7 months. The
complainant agreed and advanced friendly loan of Rs
3,00,000/- to the accused.
BHAWNA
RATTAN
3. Thereafter, the lapse of 7 months, the complainant Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
approached the accused and asked the accused to repay 16:27:47 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 2 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
the loan but the accused sought some time from the
complainant to repay the loan amount by the month of
April 2016. Subsequently, in April 2016, on demand by
the complainant the accused issued the cheque i.e. the
cheque in question and also assured the complainant that
the same would be honoured when presented.
4. However, when the complainant presented the cheque
for encashment, it was returned dishonoured with the
remarks “funds insufficient.” The complainant
immediately contacted the accused on which the accused
apologized to the complainant and requested the
complainant to again present the cheque.
5. Accordingly, complainant again presented the cheque
but it returned dishonoured with remarks “funds
insufficient.” The complainant again contacted the
accused but this time the accused avoided the
complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant was left
with no other option, then the legal demand notice was
sent to the accused to make the payment of the cheque.
The accused even after receipt of the notice, did not BHAWNA
RATTAN
Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:27:56 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 3 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
made any payment. Thus, the present complaint was
filed.
PRE SUMMONING EVIDENCE
6. At the stage of pre-summoning evidence, the
complainant relied upon the following documents:
i. Cheque in question Ex CW1/1. ii. Return memo Ex CW1/2. iii. Copy of legal demand notice Ex CW1/3. iv. Postal receipts Ex CW1/4 (colly). v. Tracking report Ex CW1/5.
7. After the PSE is led, the summoning of the accused is
done if there is sufficient material on record in terms of
the ingredients of the offence. i.e. once the complaint
BHAWNA
prima facie reveals that there is sufficient material on RATTAN
record to summon the accused, then the accused is Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
summoned. The summoning order was done on Date: 2026.02.16
16:28:03 +0530
14.10.2016.
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 4 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED
8. For securing the appearance of the accused, summons
issued. The summons was served. Thereafter bailable
warrants issued. After the execution of the bailable
warrants, accused entered into appearance and matter
fixed for framing of notice.
NOTICE FRAMING
9. Notice under section 251 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was framed on 01.04.2017 and
the same was read over and explained to the accused and
he was asked to make his plea of defence to which he
stated;
I bought the shop of the sister of the complainant for a total
consideration of Rs 11 lakhs. For the payment of the said
consideration, I borrowed a sum of Rs 3 lakhs from the
complainant at 3% per month. The complainant made payment BHAWNA
to his sister on my behalf. So far I have paid Rs 8 lakhs to the RATTAN
Digitally signed
sister of the complainant. I am ready and willing to pay the by BHAWNA
RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
remaining amount of Rs 3 lakhs subject to execution of the 16:28:28 +0530
documents.
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 5 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
I admit that I took loan of Rs 3 lakhs from the complainant. I
have total liability of Rs 3 lakhs. The said amount can be taken
by the complainant or his sister. However, I shall pay the said
amount upon the execution of the documents and the registry.
The complainant has misused the cheque in question.
10. The accused admitted that the cheque in question
bears his signature and also the fact that he received the
legal demand notice.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
11. To prove his case the complainant got himself exam-
ined as CW-1, and reiterated the version of the complaint
and in his examination in chief adopted the pre-sum-
moning evidence affidavit Ex CW1/G and relied upon
all the documents exhibited at the stage of pre-sum-
moning evidence.
BHAWNA
RATTAN
Digitally signed
STAGE OF CROSS EXAMINATION by BHAWNA
RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:28:34 +0530
12. For the purpose of cross examination, it is pertinent
to mention the provision under section 145 (2) of the
Negotiable Instruments, Act 1881 (Act);
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 6 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
The court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of
the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any
person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained
therein.
13. In the present matter, on oral request made by the Ld.
counsel for the accused under section 145 (2) of the Act,
the court after considering, the defence disclosed by the
accused allowed the right to cross examine the
complainant and the matter then fixed for the
complainant evidence.
14. Thereafter the complainant i.e. CW1 examined in
chief, cross examined on 01.02.2025 and was
discharged. The complainant did not examine any other
witness in CE and vide separate statement closed CE.
RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER BHAWNA
RATTAN
SECTION 313 of CrPC
Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
15. At the stage of recording of statement of the accused RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:28:42 +0530
under section 313 of CrPC all the incriminating
circumstances/evidences are put to the accused so as to
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 7 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
give him an opportunity to explain the same. The
statement of the accused was recorded on 07.04.2025.
16. The accused at the time of recording of statement
under section 313 of CrPC, stated as follows;
I had given the cheque in question to Kamlesh Gulia for a
deal (purchase) relating to a shop wherein I was staying on rent
for three years as Kamlesh Gulia was in need of money for her
daughter’s marriage. We had a deal on 22.06.2015 for amount
of Rs 11 lakhs. I gave Rs 7 lakhs (which is mentioned in the
agreement), and then Rs 1 lakh to Kamlesh Gulia (sister of
the complainant). They asked for cheque in advance for the
remaining payment of Rs 3 lakhs and the time was one year.
Kamlesh Gulia agreed to return the cheque once the payment
of Rs 3 lakhs paid by me. After the marriage of her daughter, I
was not able to contact Ms. Kamlesh Gulia as she had gone
away with her daughter. After some time, I came to know that
case was filed to vacate the shop which was to be purchased by
me. On my repeated requests, my cheque in question was not BHAWNA
returned and the same has been misused. RATTAN
Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
….., I do not know the complainant. He states himself to the Date: 2026.02.16
16:28:48 +0530
brother of Kamlesh Gulia.
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 8 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
17. Accused stated that he did not receive the legal
demand notice but admitted that the 2nd address
mentioned on the legal demand notice is his correct
address.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
18. At the time of recording of statement of the accused
under section 313 of CrPC, the accused wished to lead
the defence evidence (DE) and accordingly moved an
application under section 315 of the CrPC. In DE the
accused examined himself as DW1. DW1 was examined
in chief and part cross examined on 28.06.2025.
Thereafter on 02.08.2025, DW1 was further cross
examined and discharged. Accused did not examine any
other witness in DE and vide separate statement closed
DE.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. In the final arguments, the complainant reiterated his BHAWNA
RATTAN
entire case, that loan was given to the accused and the
Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
accused in discharge of his legal liability issued cheque RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:28:54 +0530
in question for the repayment of the loan. However,
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 9 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
when the cheque was presented for encashment, it got
dishonoured and thus, the present complaint was filed.
20. While on the other hand, accused had refuted the
claim of the complainant arguing that the accused had
not taken any alleged loan from the complainant. The
cheque in question was given by the complainant to Smt.
Kamlesh Gulia (sister of the complainant) in some
property transaction as security for the remaining
balance amount. It was further argued on the behalf of
the accused that accused even has not met the
complainant before and do not know the complainant.
21. Written submissions were filed only on the behalf of
the accused which are duly perused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
22. Under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
BHAWNA
1881(hereinafter referred as Act), to held any person RATTAN
liable for the offence the following are the essential Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
ingredients: Date: 2026.02.16
16:29:00 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 10 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
a) the cheque has been 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;
b) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, makes 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 of the receipt of
information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid; and
c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money to the payee
or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course
of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of
the said notice.
23. In the present matter, the cheque in question (cheque)
is dated 18.04.2016 and the same when presented for
BHAWNA
encashment was dishonoured vide return memo dated RATTAN
27.06.2016 which mean the cheque was presented within
Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:29:07 +0530
the statutory period of three months from the date on
which it was drawn. Thereafter the complainant sent the
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 11 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
legal demand notice dated 25.07.2016 to the accused for
the demand of the payment of the cheque amount and the
same was sent on 27.07.2016 i.e. on 30 th day but within
statutory period of thirty days from the receipt of the
information received regarding the dishonour of
cheque.
24. The accused at the time of framing of notice stated
that he received the legal demand notice and while
recording of statement under section 313 of CrPC stated
that he did not receive the legal demand notice but
admitted that the legal demand notice bears his correct
address. Thus, in that regard, it is appropriate to mention
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled;
‘C. C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed‘ reported as
(2007) 6 SCC 555;
“13. According to Section 114 of the
Act, read with Illustration (f) thereunder, when it
appears to the Court that the common course of
business renders it probable that a thing would
happen, the Court may draw presumption that the
thing would have happened, unless there are
BHAWNA
circumstances in a particular case to show that the RATTAN
common course of business was not followed. Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Thus, Section 114 enables the Court to presume Date: 2026.02.16
the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to 16:29:17 +0530have happened, regard being had to the common
course of natural events, human conduct andCt Cases 5004014/2016 Page 12 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
public and private business in their relation to the
facts of the particular case. Consequently, the
court can presume that the common course of
business has been followed in particular cases.
When applied to communications sent by post,
Section 114 enables the Court to presume that in
the common course of natural events, the
communication would have been delivered at the
address of the addressee. But the presumption that
is raised under Section 27 of the G.C. Act is a far
stronger presumption. Further, while Section 114
of Evidence Act refers to a general presumption,
Section 27 refers to a specific presumption.
(Emphasis supplied.)“17 Any drawer who claims that he
did not receive the notice sent by post, can within
15 days of receipt of summons from the court in
respect of complaint under Section 138 of the Act,
make the payment of the cheque amount and
submit to the court that he had made the payment
within 15 days of the receipt of summons (by
receiving a copy of complaint with the summons)
and, therefore, the complainant is liable to be
rejected. A person who does not pay within 15
days of receipt of summons from the court along
with the copy of complaint Under Section 138 of
the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was
no proper service of notice as required under
Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption
to the contrary Under Section 27 of General
Clauses Act and 114 of the Evidence Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally
Therefore, in the light of the law admission signed by
BHAWNA
BHAWNA RATTAN
made by the accused, it can be presumed RATTAN Date:
2026.02.16
16:29:24
that the accused had received the legal +0530demand notice. Hence, the third ingredient
is also established by the complainant.
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 13 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
25. Now, further in section 138 of the Act, if the accused
admits the fact that he has signed the cheque in question,
then the presumption under section 139 of the Act, r/w
section 118(a) of the Act, arises.
Section 139 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.
Section 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments;
(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.
26. Now, as per the mandate of the law, when the accused
admits that he signed the cheque, then it is presumed that
the same was given for a legally enforceable debt or
other liability and presumption of the same lies in the
favour of the complainant and to rebut the same
BHAWNA
presumption the burden of proof lies on the accused. RATTAN
Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:29:33 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 14 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
27. In the present matter, the accused though has admitted
his signatures on the cheque but had taken a defence that
the cheque in question was not given by the accused to
the complainant in discharge of any legal liability else, it
was given to the sister of complainant during some
property transaction (purchase).
28. Now since the right to cross examine the complainant
was given to the accused, thus the complainant entered
into witness box as CW1. During the examination in
chief, CW1 adopted his pre-summoning evidence
affidavit i.e. Ex CW1/A and reiterated the same facts as
mentioned in the complaint qua the factum of giving of
loan to the accused and relied upon all the documents
tendered at the stage of pre-summoning evidence.
29. In cross examination, CW1 stated, will quote the
relevant portions of the cross examination dated
01.02.2025;
BHAWNA
.................. RATTAN
"I know the accused through my cousin sister Smt. Kamlesh Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
Gulia. I do not know the accused directly. One agreement was 16:29:39 +0530
executed between my cousin sister and the accused in respect
of one shop owned by my sister. I do not know what was
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 15 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
consideration amount of the agreement as it was transaction
between my sister and accused. I had given Rs 3 lakhs to my
sister by way of cash.”
……………..
CW1 stated that he had given Rs 3 lakhs to his sister. However,
the case of the complainant is that the accused was in need of
money and the loan of Rs 3 lakhs was advanced to the accused
for the period of 6-7 months. At this stage will reproduce the
para 2 of the complaint;
“That in the month of the May 2015 the accused approached
the complainant and stated that he was in need of money and
requested the complainant to give him a sum of Rs 3,00,000/-
as a friendly loan for a period of 6-7 months to purchase a shop,
to which the complainant agreed and gave the accused a sum
of Rs 3,00,000/- as friendly loan for a period of six months.”
30. Now both the versions of the complainant are
different. Further, to the astonishment of a reasonable
mind, at the time of providing loan of Rs 3,00,000/-
BHAWNA
which undoubtedly a huge sum of money (even if given RATTAN
to accused), the complainant had not taken any piece of Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
security or secured the loan by any collateral. The loan Date: 2026.02.16
16:29:46 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 16 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
advanced was further devoid of any guarantee. As it is
stated in the complaint, para 4;
“That in April 2016 on demand by the complainant and
towards the repayment of his above-mentioned liability the
accused issued the cheque……..”
Hence, the cheque in question was also issued by the
accused as per the version of the complaint in April 2016
only.
31. CW1 during his cross examination also stated that,
the accused had filled the cheque in front of him and
handed over to him in discharge of the legal liability.
However, it was argued on the behalf of the accused at
the time of final arguments, that accused do not know
English and thus, cheque was never filled by the accused
or handed over to the complainant as alleged by the
complainant.
Court observation: Now, since it being a material
argument raised on the behalf of the accused, the court BHAWNA
RATTAN
has observed that, through the entire stage of trial i.e. at
Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
different stages, wherein the accused was required to RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:29:53 +0530
append his signatures, the accused had signed only in
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 17 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
Hindi. Even the vakalatnama filed on the behalf of the
accused bears the signature of the accused in Hindi.
Hence, this also creates reasonable doubt in the version
of the complainant.
32. This was some appreciable portions of the cross
examination of CW1. After the complainant evidence,
the statement of the accused was recorded under section
313 of CrPC, wherein the accused stated that the cheque
was given to the sister of the complainant, in property
transaction i.e. regarding the purchase of a property from
the sister of the complainant and no such loan was ever
taken by the accused from the complainant. Accused also
stated that he did not even know the complainant.
33. Now, at this stage, will revert to the plea of defence
made by the accused at the time of framing of notice,
wherein the accused inter alia stated that, he borrowed
loan of Rs 3 lakhs at 3% from the complainant and at the
time of recording of statement of accused, accused stated
BHAWNA
that no such loan was taken from the complainant but the RATTAN
Digitally signed
cheque was given to the sister of the complainant by BHAWNA
RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
(supra). 16:30:00 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 18 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
34. Thus, it has become appropriate to discuss the
evidentiary value of both the statements made by the
accused at different stages of the trial. The Apex court
through catena of judgements has made it very clear that
section 313 of CrPC confers a valuable right upon the
accused to establish his innocence by giving explanation
to the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him during the trial.
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Basavaraj R. Patel vs
State of Karnataka“, reported as (2000) 8 SCC 740,
observed that;
19. Thus it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to
benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the court in
reaching the final conclusion.
Further in “Mohan Singh vs Prem Singh” reported as
(2002) 10 SCC 236, Hon’ble Supreme Court held;
“30. The statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC is not
a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating
BHAWNA
evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, RATTAN
however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution.” Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:30:07 +0530Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 19 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
Also, in “Dharnidhar vs State of U.P.” reported as (2010)
7 SCC 759, Hon’ble Supreme Court held;
“67. It is true that the statement under section 313 CrPC cannot
be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can
be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly
when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the
chain of events.”
Hence, the law is precisely clear that the right given to accused
under section 313 CrPC is a salutary provision and further the
explanation given by the accused can be taken into
consideration by the court and be read with the other
circumstances and evidences tendered.
36. Certainly, the initial stage of notice framing is not for
seeking a detailed explanation from the accused
regarding the incriminating circumstances, which are
specifically put to the accused after the conclusion of the
prosecution/complainant evidence i.e. at the stage of
recording statement under section 313 of CrPC.
Undoubtedly, more weightage be given to the statement BHAWNA
RATTAN
of the accused recorded at a later stage. However, both Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
RATTAN
the statements do not strictly fall into the category of Date: 2026.02.16
16:30:14 +0530
evidence.
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 20 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
37. After recording of statement of the accused, the
accused entered into witness box for the purpose of
defence evidence and examined himself as DW1. DW1
during his examination in chief inter alia stated that, the
accused was tenant in the shop owned by Smt. Kamlesh
Gulia (stated to be the sister of the complainant) and the
accused and Smt. Kamlesh Gulia entered into an
agreement to sell that shop to accused for total
consideration of Rs 11 lakhs. The copy of said agreement
is placed on record as Mark DW1/D. Out of the total
consideration, the accused paid Rs 8 lakhs to Smt.
Kamlesh Gulia and for remaining Rs 3 lakhs the accused
handed over a cheque i.e. the cheque in question as
security for the remaining payment. It was also stated by
DW1 that one eviction suit was filed by Smt. Kamlesh
Gulia for the same shop and the suit was decreed in her
favour.
38. Thereafter during the cross examination, the certified
copy of the order/judgment vide, which the eviction suit
BHAWNA
was decreed in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Gulia was filed RATTAN
on record as Ex DW1/CA (colly). Now pertinently after Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
perusing the order Ex DW1/CA (colly), the following
16:30:20 +0530
points have been noted;
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 21 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
 It was a suit for possession, recovery of arrears
of rent/mesne profits, damages for unauthorised
use and permanent injunction.
 The suit was decreed in favour of Smt. Kamlesh
Gulia vide judgment dated 05.09.2017 and it was
passed ex-parte.
 Will reproduce the relevant portion of para 3 of
the judgment,
“…………., the defendant offered the plantiff to
purchase the shop which the plaintiff agreed. On
05.11.2014 the defendant and the plaintiff
entered into a bayana agreement qua the said
tenanted shop for a consideration amount of Rs
11,00,000/- out of which the defendant paid a
sum of Rs 1,00,000/- towards bayana to the
plaintiff and sought a longer time to pay the
remaining consideration amount of Rs
10,00,000/-.”
 Will reproduce the relevant portion of para 7 of
the judgment,
“It is further averred that on 22.06.2015 the BHAWNA
RATTAN
defendant entered into an agreement to sell and
Digitally signed by
purchase with the plaintiff in respect to the said BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:30:29 +0530
tenanted shop………………….for a total
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 22 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
consideration amount of Rs 11,00,000/-, out of
which defendant paid Rs 7,00,000/- towards the
bayana including the Rs 1,00,000/- bayana paid
at the time of first bayana agreement dated
05.11.2014……………”
39. Hence, it has become clear, that as stated by the
accused that there was a property deal/transaction
between him and Smt. Kamlesh Gulia and in that
property transaction, the accused entered into an
agreement to sell (purchase) of that property and paid the
bayana amount to Smt. Kamlesh Gulia. Undisputably,
the bayana was paid twice by the accused, i.e. when first
time an agreement to sell was executed dated 05.11.2014
of Rs 1,00,000/- and subsequently when second
agreement to sell was executed dated 22.06.2015 of Rs
7,00,000/- and both the times the sale consideration was
of Rs 11,00,000/-.
40. Now, in continuation during the further cross
examination, one another document was tendered with
which DW1 was confronted, i.e. after the civil suit was
decreed in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Gulia (decree holder)
BHAWNA
and then the execution was filed by the decree holder and RATTAN
Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 23 of 27 16:30:36 +0530
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
in execution, the matter was referred to mediation cell
and the matter was settled between the parties. The copy
of said mediation order was also filed on record Ex
DW1/CB.
41. Hence, it is worth to reproduce the relevant portion of
Ex DW1/CB;
“That out of the above mentioned bayana amount of Rs
7,00,000/-, a sum of Rs 3,75,000/- shall be adjusted/set off
towards the satisfaction of the present execution and the
balance sum of Rs 3,25,000/- shall be refunded by the DH to
JD in three instalments by way of cash/DD before the
Hon’ble Referral Court……”
Thus, it has become thoroughly clear that there was property
transaction between Smt. Kamlesh Gulia (sister of the
complainant) and accused, for which the agreement to sell was
executed between the parties and sale consideration was of Rs
11,00,000/-, in furtherance of which Rs 7,00,000/- was paid by
the accused as bayana, pertinently second time when the
agreement to sell was executed.
BHAWNA
RATTAN
Digitally signed
42. Further, from the rest of the cross examination of by BHAWNA
RATTAN
Date: 2026.02.16
16:31:15 +0530
DW1, nothing emerged on record which would have
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 24 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
been suffice to challenge the credibility of the
witness/DW1, primarily considering the cross
examination of CW1.
43. Hence, after navigating through the entire maze of
factual matrix of the litigation between the accused and
Smt. Kamlesh Gulia, the facts of the present case and
further after appreciating the testimony of both the
complainant and the accused, I am of considered view,
that the accused certainly has able to create a reasonable
doubt in the case of the complainant.
44. Accordingly, the burden of presumption under section
139 of the Act, stands discharged and the burden has
shifted back to the complainant to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. Moreover, there is additional burden
on the complainant because of the fact that the accused
has specifically stated that he even did not know the
complainant. Thus, in that eventuality the greater onus is
of the complainant to prove his camaraderie with
accused.
BHAWNA
Hence, at this stage the reliance can be placed on RATTAN
judgment titled as “Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh” reported Digitally signed by
BHAWNA RATTAN
as (2023) 10 SCC 148; Date: 2026.02.16
16:31:21 +0530
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 25 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
45. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that
once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on
a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the
manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-
evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption
‘disappears’ and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having
now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence
of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result
in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under
section 139 does not again come to the complainant’s rescue. Once both
parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the
burden of proof loses all its importance. (emphasis
supplied)
Therefore, once the accused has proved by preponderance of
probabilities that no debt or legal liability existed in a manner
so pleaded by the complainant, the burden accordingly shift
back to the complainant to prove the existence of such debt as
matter of fact.
45. The complainant/CW1 however has failed to furnish
BHAWNA
any further cogent evidence either orally or in writing to RATTAN
concrete his case. Therefore, it can be said that the Digitally signed
by BHAWNA
RATTAN
complainant has failed to prove the case beyond Date: 2026.02.16
16:31:27 +0530
reasonable doubt when there is settled principle of
Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 26 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
criminal law that the accused is deemed to be innocent
until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
46. Hence, in the light of the principles of law, the totality
of facts, I am of the view, that accused is not guilty of the
offence under section 138 of the Act, and thus accused
Inamul Haque is hereby acquitted.
Announced in Open Court
On 16th day of February, 2026 Digitally
signed by
BHAWNA
BHAWNA RATTAN
RATTAN Date:
2026.02.16
16:31:32
+0530(Bhawna Rattan)
Judicial Magistrate First Class
(NI Act)-10; South West
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
16.02.2026Ct Cases 5004014/2016 Page 27 of 27
Sh. Jagnoop Singh Vs. Sh. Inamul Haque
