Bangalore District Court
Hareesh T P vs M/S Sln Properties And Sri Sai Documents … on 5 June, 2025
1 CC.No.28739/2022
KABC030722632022
Presented on : 08-09-2022
Registered on : 08-09-2022
Decided on : 05-06-2025
Duration : 2 years, 8 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated : This the 5th day of June 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M, B.A.L., L.L.M.
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
Case No. C.C.No
: CC.No.28739/2022
Complainant : Sri.Hareesh T.P
S/o Prakash Rao Temkar
Shankar Rao
Aged about 29 years
R/at # 177, 12A Cross, 22nd
Main, Raghavendra Layout,
Padmanabhanagar,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560070.
(By Sri.Manjuntath Gowda., Adv,)
V/s
Accused : M/s SLN Properties and
Sri Sai Documents &
Developers
2 CC.No.28739/2022
Having its office at # 13/A, 18th
Main, Secotr-3, HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560102.
Represented by its proprietor
Sri.B.Venkatesh Kumar Naidu.
(By Sri.R.Lokesh Adv.,)
Case instituted : 17.07.2022
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against
the accused under the provisions of Sec.200 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the Complainant is as under:-
It is stated that the accused is one of the real estate
in Bangalore City and is known for development of
residential layouts in and around Bangalore City. The
3 CC.No.28739/2022accused has induced the complainant on high
assurances that accused has created a revolution and
brought in to light the ‘unrealistic price’ the real estate
industry and changed the perspective of common people
towards the real estate market. The complainant being a
common man, in need of residential site approached the
accused. The accused had agreed to sell the residential
site bearing site No.1 in the layout known as ‘Rajlak
Villa Plots’ situated at Sy.No.47/5, Kachamaranahalli
Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring
East to West 28.6 feet and North to South 53.1 feet, total
measuring 1332 sq.ft to the complainant for a total sale
consideration of Rs.21,31,200/-. The complainant had
paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through bank
transaction and the accused had executed a sale
agreement dated 16.03.2022 in favour of the
complainant towards site No.1 in the said layout. After
execution of sale agreement the complainant further
paid Rs.6,00,000/- on 21.04.2022 as part payment of
4 CC.No.28739/2022sale consideration through demand draft bearing
No.699046 dated 21.04.2022, drawn on Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore. Hence, accused
had received a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the
complainant.
3. After receiving the advance amount, the accused
had failed to register the site to the complainant a
stipulated period. On request made by the complainant
the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.001057
dated 09.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, drawn on
ICICI Bank, Attibele Branch, Attibele in favour of the
complainant towards the discharge of part of accused
debt and liability. The complainant has presented the
said cheque thorugh his banker i.e. Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru on
09.05.2022. But, it got dishonorued for the reason
‘Funds Insufficient’ vide memo dated 11.05.2022.
Immediately, the complainant has intimated the accused
about the dishonour of cheque, for which the accused
5 CC.No.28739/2022
had requested to re-present the cheque and the accused
had issued ‘commitment letter’ dated 12.05.2022 stating
that the cheque amount will be refunded on 22.05.2022
without fail. Upon request the accused the complainant
has again presented the cheque before the bank, but it
again dishonoured for the reason ‘Account Blocked
(situation covered in 21-25) on 03.06.2022. Therefore,
the complainant got issued a legal notice dated
09.06.2022 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque
amount within 15 days from the date of service of legal
notice. The notice was returned with an endorsement as
‘addressee left’. But, in spite of service of legal notice,
the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and
thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of NI
Act. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this
complaint.
4. Learned Predecessor in office having heard the
arguments of learned counsel for complainant and
having satisfied with the complaint averments, sworn
6 CC.No.28739/2022
statement of complainant and documents at Ex.P1 to
Ex.P14 and prima facie materials placed on record has
taken the cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.138
of N.I.Act.
5. On service of summons, the accused has
appeared before the court through his learned counsel
and obtained the bail. The copies of all the prosecution
papers were supplied to the accused.
6. The Plea of accused for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of N.I.Act has been recorded vide dated
15.04.2024 and the substance of accusation has been
read over and explained to the accused in the language
known to him. The accused has pleaded not guilty, but
claims to be tried.
7. In order to establish the guilt against the
accused, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1
and got the documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.14.
7 CC.No.28739/2022
8. But, in spite of sufficient opportunites were
given, the accused and his learned counsel continuously
remained absent and did not choose to cross-examine
PW.1 and therefore, the cross-examination of PW.1 was
ordered to be taken as nil.
9. The accused and his learned counsel also
continuously remained absent and did not available for
recording of statement of accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
Recently Hon’ble High court of Karnatka in
Crl.R.P.No.664/2020 in between Sunil Yadav V/s
Smt.Y.C. Manju held that
“it is also important to note that considering
the factual aspect of the case as well as
proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, it is
settled law that same has to be concluded
expeditiously in the light of guidelines issued by
the Courts from time to time for speedy disposal of
the cases, the scope of Section 142, 143 and 145
of NI Act, it was not necessary for the Trial Court
to wait for accused to make his appearance. The
Court is empowered to proceed with the case
without recording the statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The mere use of word
‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary
power on the Court to consider or not to consider
8 CC.No.28739/2022
such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right
of an accused for access to justice. If the accused
has not bothered to remain present before the
Court and also Court has to take note of the fact
that complainant is running from pillar to pillar
after filing of the case and when the material
discloses that the accused did not bothered, Court
has to exercise discretion and proceed with the
case by dispensing with statement under Section
313 of the Code. The accused has no regard for
directions of the Court. When such being the case,
it is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense
with the recording of Section 313 of Cr.P.C.”
10. It is pertinent to note here that the proceedings
of this nature where the accused is charged for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act is a summary in
nature as per Sec.143 of N.I.Act and the provisions of
Sec.262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. are applicable to the trials.
As per Sub Sec.2 and 3 of Sec.143 of N.I.Act, the trial of
a case under this section shall, so far as practicable,
consistently with the interests of justice, be continued
from day to day until its conclusion, unless the court
finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following
day to be necessary for the reasons to be recorded in
9 CC.No.28739/2022
writing and every trial under section 138 of NI Act, shall
be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an
endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within 6
months from the date of filing of the complaint.
11. Further, as per the principles laid down and
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in a decision reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 in between
Indian Association Bank V/s Union of India, the chief-
examination, cross-examination and re-examination has
to be conducted on the same day and on day to day
basis untill its conclusion and the entire trial of the
proceedings U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act has to be concluded
with the span of 3 months.
12. But, in the present case, in spite of sufficient
opportunites were given, the accused did not appear
before the court either personally or through his learned
counsel and thereby failed to cross-examine PW.1. Even
then accused failed to cross examine the complainant
10 CC.No.28739/2022
and also failed to available for recording of statement
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, in
order to comply the mandates of Sec.143(2)(3) of NI Act
and principles laid down and direction issued by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank
Association V/s Union of Inida reported in 2014(5)
SCC 590, this court had no option, but to proceed to
pass necessary orders on the available materails on
record and acordingly, the cross-examination of PW.1
was ordered to be taken as nil and closed and since the
proceedings U/sec.138 of NI Act being summary in
nature and summons trial, the statement of accused
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was ordered to be dispensed with
by invoking the provisions of 313(1) of Cr.P.C. and the
defence evidence is also ordered to be taken as nil and
closed.
13. I have heard the arguments of the advocate for
the complainant and accsued counsel has not addresed
11 CC.No.28739/2022
arguemnts. I have perused the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record.
14. Now, the points that would arise for my
consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has issued a cheque bearing No.001057
dated 09.05.2022 for Rs.7,00,000/-, drawn on
ICICI Bank, Attibele Branch, Attibele in his
favour towards the legally recoverable debt of
Rs.7,00,000/- and on presentation of cheque for
encashment before bank, it got dishonorued
‘Funds Insufficient’ and ‘Account Blocked’ vide
bank endorsements dt:11.05.2022 & 03.06.2022
respectively and in spite of issuance of legal
notice dt:09.06.2022 and in spite of service of
legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the
cheque amount and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
15. On considering and assessing the oral and
documentatry evidence placed on record, now my
answers to the above points are as under :
[ Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
12 CC.No.28739/2022Point No.2: As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
16. Point No.1 : It is averred in the complaint and
stated by PW.1 in his oral evidence that the accused had
agreed to sell the residential site bearing No.1 in the
layout known as ‘Rajlak Villa Plots’ situated at
Sy.No.47/5, Kachamaranahalli Village, Varthu Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, measuring East to West 28.6 feet
and North to South 53.1 feet, total measuring 1332 sq.ft
to him for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,31,200/-.
He had paid advance amount of Rs.1 lakhs throgh bank
transaction and the accused had executed a sale
agreement dated 16.03.2022 in his favour and after
execution of sale agreement he has further paid Rs.6
lakhs on 21.04.2022 as part payment through demand
draft. But the accused failed to register the site. For
refunding the advance consideration to the complainant,
the accused has issued the cheque in question and he
has presented the cheque for encashment before the
13 CC.No.28739/2022
bank, it got dishonoured with an endorsements as
‘Funds Insufficient’ and ‘Account Blocked’ and therefore,
he got issued a legal notice, the legal notice was served
upon the accused, but, in spite of service of legal notice,
the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and
therefore, he has presented the compalint before the
Court.
16. The complainant has produced the cheque
dated 09.05.2022, bank endorsements dated 11.05.2022
& 03.06.2022 respectively, legal notice dated
09.06.2022, postal receipt, retunred notice, postal cover,
postal receipt, agreement of sale, receipts, commitment
letter and complaint and they are marked at Ex.P1 to
P14.
17. The accused has not seriously disputed the
issuance of cheque or dishonour of cheque with an
endorsements as ‘Funds Insufficient’ and ‘Account
Blocked’ or issuance of legal notice and its service
14 CC.No.28739/2022
during recording of plea on 15.04.2024. The defense of
the accused was as that of total denial as on recording of
plea vide dated 15.04.2024. The accused did not choose
to cross-examine PW.1. The oral evidence of PW.1 and
the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P14 remained
unchallenged by the accused.
18. However, on careful perusal of complaint
averments, oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary
evidence at Ex.P1 to P14, it clearly establishes that
accused has issued the cheque vide Ex.P1 in favour of
the complainant for repayment of outstanding liability,
but on presentation of cheque for encashment before the
bank, the said cheque was dishonoured vide bank
endorsements at Ex.P2 & 3.
19. The materials placed on record clearly
establishes that the complainant got issued a legal
notice vide Ex.P4 calling upon the accused to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service
15 CC.No.28739/2022
of legal notice. But in spite of service of legal notice, the
accused failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore,
the complainant presented the complaint before the
court on 11.07.2022.
20. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque
vide Ex.P1. As could be seen from the documents at
Ex.P2 & 3, the said cheque was dishonoured with an
ensorsements as ‘Funds Insufficient’ and ‘Account
Blocked’ vide bank endorsements at Ex.P2 & P3. So, it is
crystal clear that the complainant has presented the
cheque for encashment before the bank well within the
validity of the cheque and it got dishonoured.
21. Further, as could be seen from the documents
at Ex.P4, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated
09.06.2022 giving 15 days time to the accused to comply
the demands made in the notice, but it was returned.
But, in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has
failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore, the
16 CC.No.28739/2022
complainant has presented the complaint before the
court which was well within time.
22. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has
complied the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act by adducing
the oral evidence of PW.1 and also by producing the
documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P14. Therefore, when
once the complainant has complied the mandates of
Sec.138 of NI Act, then this court has no option, but to
raise and to draw the presumptions in favour of the
complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of
NI Act.
23. Admittedly, the presumptions available in
favour of the complainant U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act
are not conclusive proof, but they are rebuttable in
nature. Therefore, when once the complainant has
fullfilled the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act and when
once the court has drawn the presumptions in favour of
the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and
17 CC.No.28739/2022
139 of NI Act, then the onus shifts of the accused to
rebut the statutory presumptions available in favour of
the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and
139 of NI Act.
24. Now, let us consider as to whether the accused
could able to raise a probable defense and could able to
prove the same before the court with legal evidence and
could able to rebut the statutory presumptions available
in favour of the complainant U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI
Act.
25. At the outset, it is ncessary to note here that
while recording the plea of accused on 15.04.2024, the
accused has pleaded not guilty, but claims to be tried.
In other words, it is to be noted here that the defense of
the accused at the time of recording of plea on
15.04.2024 was as that of total denial and there is no
specific defence. The accused has not stated anything
about the cheque. The accused has not stated as to how
18 CC.No.28739/2022
and in what manner the cheque passed from his
possession to the hands of the complainant.
26. However, the accused did not choose to cross-
examine PW.1 in spite of sufficient opportunites were
given. In the absence of cross-examination of PW.1 and
in the absence of defense evidence and in the absence of
any cogent documentary proof and in the absence of any
materials, the defense of the accused as that of total
denial is not sustainable under law and therefore,
cannot be accepted.
27. On appreciation of entire oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, it is found that the accused
has issued the cheque vide Ex.P1 in favour of the
complainant for legally recoverable liability of
Rs.7,00,000/- and on presentation of cheque for
encashment, it was dishonorued vide bank
endorsements at Ex.P2 & P3, but in spite of service of
19 CC.No.28739/2022
legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque
amount.
28. The complainant has established the guilt
against the accused with oral evidence of P.W.1 and the
documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P14. The oral
evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence at
Ex.P1 to P14 remained unchallenged by the accused.
Under these circumstances, there are no reasons to
disbelieve or to discard the oral evidence of P.W.1 and
the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P14.
29. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above,
this court is of the considered view that the materials
placed on record clearly establishes the guilt against the
accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Hence, I hold that the complainant has proved the guilt
against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138
of NI Act. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the
‘Affirmative’.
20 CC.No.28739/2022
30. POINT. No.2:- Therefore, considering the
nature of transaction between the complainant and the
accused including facts and circumstances of the case
and regard being had to the time taken for disposal of
this case, this Court is of the considered view that if the
following sentence is awarded, then it would meet the
ends of justice. Hence, in view of my findings on point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the
offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and
sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
Only), in default of fine amount, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for
1 year under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected
from the accused, an amount of
Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs
Ninety Thousand only) shall be paid
to the complainant as compensation
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining
fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted
towards the cost of state defraying
expenses.
21 CC.No.28739/2022
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgement to the accused forthwith at
free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me
and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 5 th
day of June 2025).
Digitally signed
by Tejaswini K
M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.06.06
11:33:24
+0530
(Smt.TEJASWINI K.M)
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the
Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.Hareesha T.P
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the
Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the Accused.
Ex.P.2 & 3 : Bank Memos.
Ex.P.4 : Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.5 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.6 : Returned notice.
Ex.P.7 : Postal Cover.
Ex.P.8 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.9 : Copy of Agreement of Sale.
Ex.P.10 to 12 : Receipts.
22 CC.No.28739/2022
Ex.P.13 : Commitment Letter.
Ex.P.14 : Complaint.
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the
Accused:-
NIL
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the
Accused:-
NIL
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini Tejaswini
Date:
KM
KM 2025.06.06
11:33:31
+0530
(Smt.TEJASWINI K.M)
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru City
23 CC.No.28739/2022