Bangalore District Court
C.Karthik Reddy vs M/S J.V.Developers Rep By Its Partner … on 19 June, 2025
KABC030610552019
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2025.
PRESENT:SMT.RASHMI H.B., B.A.(LAW)LL.B.,LLM.,
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.19350 of 2019
Complainant :- C.Karthik Reddy,
S/o.Chikkathayappa Reddy,
Aged about 35 Years,
O/at.No.13, 5th Cross,
Rupena Agrahara,
Bommanahalli Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Sri.S.S.M, Advocate)
-V/s-
Accused :- 1.M/s.J.V.Developers,
A Partnership concern,
O/at No.8, 4th Main,
K.R.Garden, Murugeshpalya,
Bengaluru - 560017.
Represented by its Partner -
Surendranath Reddy.
2.Surendranath Reddy,
S/o.L.A.Shivashankar Reddy,
Partner of J.V.Developers,
R/at.No.8, 4th Main, K.R.Garden,
Murugeshpalya,
Bengaluru - 560017.
(Rep. By Sri.R.G.S., Advocate)
2 C.C.No.19350/2019
Date of complaint :- 09-08-2019
Date of Commencement :- 23-08-2019
of evidence
Offence complained :- Section 138 of N.I.Act
Opinion of the Judge :- Accused No.1 & 2 are found guilty.
Digitally signed
RASHMI by RASHMI H B
Date:
HB 2025.06.19
17:35:15 +0530
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed under section 200 of
Cr.P.C., against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The accused No.2 is Partner of accused No.1 Partnership
firm.
02.The brief facts of the complaint is as under:
The accused No.2 is Partner of accused No.1 Partnership
firm. The accused No.2 and complainant are family friends. In
order to meet financial necessities of accused No.1 and 2,
accused No.2 has availed hand loan of Rs 30,00,000/- from
complainant by executing a hand loan agreement on 10-03-
3 C.C.No.19350/20192018. Further he has executed On Demand Promissory note
on the same day and he has issued the Cheque bearing no
101801 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd, Old Madras Road
branch,Bengaluru for a sum of Rs 30,00,000/- as a collateral
security. Further accused No.2 has agreed to repay the said
amount within 6 months. On demand of repayment after 6
months, accused has issued two other cheques No.033771
dated 23-05-2019 for Rs 4,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd,
Old Madras Road branch,Bengaluru towards payment of
interest on principal amount. As accused did not make any
payment, complainant has presented the cheque bearing No
101801 through his banker on 29-04-2019 and it was
dishonoured on 30-04-2019 and complainant has initiated
prosecution in PCR No 8432/2019(C.C.No 19349/ 2019).
Further complainant has presented the cheque no 033771
dated 23-05-2019 for Rs 4,00,000/- issued by accused,
through his banker Canara bank, HSR Lay out branch for
encashment and it was dishonoured for the reason “Funds
Insufficient” as per the bank endorsement dated 27-05-
2019. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued legal notice
4 C.C.No.19350/2019to the accused on 26-06-2019 through registered post calling
upon accused No.1 and 2 to pay the cheque amount. The said
notice were duly served on accused No.1 and 2. But, the
accused No.1 and 2 have failed to make payment of cheque
amount. Hence, complainant has filed this complaint on 09-
08-2019.
03. After presentation of complaint, this Court took
cognizance of offence and recorded the sworn statement of
complainant. Thereafter, a criminal case is registered
against accused No.1 and 2 and summons are issued to
the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 is a Partnership
firm represented by its Partner accused No.2 appeared
through his counsel and he is enlarged on bail. The copies
of the complaint and other papers furnished to the accused
No.2. Substance of accusation was read over to him.
Accused No.2 has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
04. In order to prove the accusation made against
the accused, the complainant examined one witness as
5 C.C.No.19350/2019
PW1 and relied on 17 documents as Ex P1 to Ex.P17. It is
evident to note, during cross-examination of DW1, Ex P 8
to 17 are marked. Thereafter, statement of accused No.2
is recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the
accused No.2 has denied the incriminating evidence found
on record as false and he submitted he would lead defence
evidence. The accused examined himself as DW1. The
accused relied on 4 documents marked as as Ex.D1 to 4.
05. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
complainant and he has filed notes of arguments. The
defence did not adduce arguments. Perused entire case
record carefully.
06. On the basis of contentions raised in the
complaint the points that arises for determination of this
Court are as follows:
1.Whether the complainant proves that,
the accused issued the cheque towards
discharge of legally enforceable debt?
2.Whether the complainant proves the guilt
of the accused for the offence
6 C.C.No.19350/2019punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act?
3.What order?
07. Now, this Court answers to above points are
as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: As per final order for
the following:
:: R E A S O N S ::
08. POINTS No.1 and 2: Since these points are
inter-relating with each other, they are taken up together for
common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and
findings.
09. This case is tried as summons case. As this matter
is tried as summons case, this Court relies on the evidence
recorded by learned predecessor in office. In that regard, this
Court relies on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Mehsana Nagarik Sahkari Bank Ltd., V/s
Shreeji Cab Co. & Others reported in 2014(13) SCC 619.
Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that de-
7 C.C.No.19350/2019
nova hearing is necessary only when the evidence is
recording in summary manner. Therefore, this Court has
proceeded with the case on the basis of part evidence
recorded previously.
10. Before proceeding with the discussion, in order to
prove the guilt of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, initial
burden casts on the complainant to prove the following
ingredients:
a) The cheque must have been drawn
for discharge of existing debt or
liability.
b) Cheque must be presented within
validity period.
c) Cheque must be returned unpaid due
to insufficient funds or it exceeds the
amount arranged.
d) Fact of dishonour be informed to the
drawer by notice within 30 days.
e) Drawer of cheque must fail to make
payment within 15 days of receipt of
the notice.
11. In order to prove the case, the complainant – Sri
C.Karthik Reddy has examined himself as PW1. The PW1
has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
8 C.C.No.19350/2019
reiterating entire complaint averments. In support of his
oral evidence, he has produced Ex.P1 to 11 documents. The
complainant got marked original cheque as Ex.P1, signature
of accused as Ex.P1(a), bank memo as Ex.P2, demand
notice as Ex.P3, two postal receipts as Ex.P4 and 5, two
postal acknowledgments as Ex.P6 and 7.
12. Further, complainant relied on Ex P8 to 17
documents which are admitted by Dw1 during his cross –
examination. The copy of complaint in CC No 19349/2019,
application copy in OA No 570/2017, Objections filed in said
proceedings, Complaint in CC No 50370/2019, loan
agreement dated 25-08-2015, copy of sale deed dated 30-
04-2018, two certified copies of Memorandum of Deposit of
title deeds, Vakalath of accused, deposition of accused in
CC No 50370/2019 are marked as Ex P 8 to 17 during cross
-examination of Dw1 on his admission.
13. During cross-examination of PW1, accused took
multiple defences. The PW1 has deposed he is having
annual income of Rs 62-65 Lakhs from his construction
9 C.C.No.19350/2019
business and he is income tax payee. Further he deposed
his ignorance about the details of the other partner of
accused No.1 firm. PW1 has explained through his uncle
Narayana Reddy he got acquaintance with accused No.2
about 8 ½ years back as on the date of evidence. The
accused confronted the copy of hand loan agreement dated
10-03-2018, Cheque marked in CC No 19349/2019, On
Demand Promissory note and consideration receipts which
are relied by complainant in CC No 19349/2019 to PW1.
PW1 admitted those documents and those documents are
marked as Ex D1 to Ex D4. Further he has admitted para 2
of Ex P1 left blank about the additional amount to be paid
by accused in addition to payment of principal amount of Rs
30,00,000/-to PW1. PW1 has deposed on 10-03-2018 he
has paid Rs 30,00,000/- to accused and on the same day
accused issued the disputed cheque in signed blank form.
Further PW1 has deposed he has written On Demand
Promissory note and Consideration receipt. The defence
suggested the signatures found in On Demand Promissory
10 C.C.No.19350/2019
note and Consideration receipt are not belong to accused.
The said suggestions answered as not true.
14. Further during cross examination of PW1, he has
admitted accused No.1 is not party to the Ex D1 agreement
and no reference is made about it. Further he has admitted
on 10-03-2018 accused has issued three signed blank
cheques and he has written the date, amount and his name
in those cheques. Further he has deposed he did not
calculate the amount arise out of interest. Further defence
has suggested the demand notice did not served to accused
and he did not sign the postal acknowledgments. PW1 has
denied said suggestions as false.
15. During cross examination, defence has contended
the accused has availed loan of Rs 30,00,000/- from
Narayana Reddy and he has obtained three signed blank
cheques as security and accused has repaid said loan to
Narayana Reddy on 19-05-2019. The said suggestions
answered as not true. Further Pw1 has admitted he has
filed suit in OS no 6920/2021 before Hon’ble CCH-XXXII
11 C.C.No.19350/2019
Court, Bengaluru City for recovery of the amount against
accused.
16. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P7 clearly
show the complaint is filed within time and all the
ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. The cheque is issued
for legally recoverable debt and it is dishonored for Funds
Insufficient. The said fact is brought to the notice of
accused. Till date the accused did not comply the demand
of the complainant for payment of amount mentioned in the
cheques. Therefore, PW1 has discharged his burden to
prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
17. Another aspect is to consider whether the Ex.P1
cheque and Ex.P1(a) signature belongs to the accused or
not. The defense has admitted Ex.P1 cheque belong to
accused and it bears his signature. These facts clearly
shows that the cheque in dispute is belongs to accused and
he has signed the said document. Therefore, presumption
12 C.C.No.19350/2019
under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, lies in favour of the
complainant.
18. As per provision of section 118 and 139 of N.I.
Act, the court has to presume liability of the accused and to
such amount mentioned in the cheque to discharge legally
recoverable debt. The said aspect was denied by the
accused. 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.
Thereafter, the onus of proving probable defense of the
accused is on accused and standard of proof for rebutting
presumption is preponderance of probabilities. To rebut
presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence
or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by
the complainant in order to raise probable defense.
19. In that regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in its Judgment reported in 2019(5) SCC 418 in the
case of Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa discussed the
manner in which accused could rebut the presumption
13 C.C.No.19350/2019
raised under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments
Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5)
SCC 418 laid down principles regarding how presumption
under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act can be rebutted.
20. To rebut the presumptions, accused entered into
witness box as DW1. He has deposed he had never meet
complainant and he did not avail loan from the
complainant. He has deposed in the year 2018, he has
availed loan from Narayana Reddy to purchase land at
Doddaballapura and he has received said loan amount of Rs
30,00,000/- in cash from the Narayana Reddy. The said
Narayana Reddy has obtained three signed blank cheques
as security for the said amount in the month of January
2019. After obtaining loan from Anandrathi Global Finance
Ltd, he has given Rs 15,00,000/- to complainant. Further
he has availed loan of Rs 15,00,000/- from one Venkatesh
and Naveen Reddy. After arranging said amount of Rs
30,00,000/-, he has repaid the said amount to Narayana
14 C.C.No.19350/2019
Reddy on 19-05-2019 and requested him to return three
security cheques. The said Narayana Reddy has assured
that he would return those cheques. But those cheques
were misused by the complainant and Narayana Reddy.
Further he has deposed he did not execute hand loan
agreement, On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration
receipt and he has denied his signature. Therefore he prays
to acquit him.
21. During cross-examination, Dw1 has deposed he
and his wife are the partners in accused no1 firm and his
wife is aware of this case. Further he deposed the account
of the partnership firm is maintained at Axis Bank,
Benaganahalli branch. He has admitted that Ex P1 cheque
belong to his account and it bears his signature. He has
deposed he did not fill other writings of Ex P1 cheque.
Further he did not verify the cheque through which Rs
30,00,000/- paid to him about the name of the account
holder. Further he did not enquire about whether the
signature found in said cheque belong to Narayana Reddy
15 C.C.No.19350/2019
or complainant. Further he has admitted the fact that
mobile number mentioned in postal document is belong to
him and he did not lodge any complaint to postal authority
regarding non service of notice to him. Further Dw1 has
deposed he do not have any document to show Narayana
Reddy has acknowledge the payment made by him on 19-
05-2019.
22. Further he has deposed that he has availed loan
of Rs 1,56,00,000/- from Anandarathi Global Finance ltd
and said loan was obtained to clear the loan of Rs
1,20,00,000/- availed from Janatha Seva Co-operative
bank. He has admitted the Ex P8 to 17 documents.
23. On going through evidence on record, the accused
took specific defence that accused has handed over signed
blank cheques as security for the loan of Rs 30,00,000/-
availed from the Narayana Reddy and those cheques are
misused by the complainant. In order to substantiate said
defence, accused relied on his evidence. No admission
elicited from mouth of PW1 to prove said defence. The
16 C.C.No.19350/2019
Narayana Reddy is not examined by accused to state he
has lend Rs 30,00,000/- to accused and it is repaid in the
month of May 2019. Further accused did not produce any
document to show he has given disputed three cheques to
Narayana Reddy, which are misused by the complainant. It
is admitted fact that accused was in dire need of money in
the undisputed point of time about availing loan of Rs
30,00,000/-. The admission of Dw1 to avail loan from
finance to clear another granted by another finance goes to
show financial condition to return Rs 30,00,000/- in cash is
not probable to believe. Even other wise the documents and
evidence produced by accused itself shows he has made
crores rupees of loans and his wife has sold the property to
get rid of the loan. When such being the case, accused
returning cash amount of Rs 30,00,000/- to Narayana
Reddy is found improbable to believe.
24. No receipts are taken by the accused for payment
of Rs 30,00,000/- to Narayana Reddy in cash. The huge
amount of Rs 30,00,000/- out of which Rs 15,00,000/- paid
17 C.C.No.19350/2019
from loan availed from bank shows very less chance to
return the said amount in cash, whereas accused availed
loan of Rs 30,00,000/- in cheque. But, there is no
document is produced to show he has paid Rs 30,00,000/-
to Narayana Reddy. Further, there is no agreement in
writing is produced to show the said amount is paid in cash.
Therefore entire version of Dw1 appear to be after thought
defence.
25. On the other hand Ex D1, 3 and 4 documents to
shows the accused has availed loan of Rs 30,00,000/- from
the complainant and as per Ex D1 he has voluntarily
handed over the Ex D2 cheque to complainant towards said
loan as security and sought time for 6 months. The Ex P D3
shows the accused acknowledged the payment and he has
agreed to return the amount with interest at the rate of 18
% per annum.
26. It is only disputed fact that accused did not
issued Ex P1 cheque towards liability mentioned in the
complaint and accused has given said cheque along with
18 C.C.No.19350/2019
other two signed blank cheques to Narayana Reddy. The
said Narayana Reddy is relative of complainant. The
accused has admitted the fact that he has voluntarily
handed over the cheques in signed blank form. As per the
version of defence itself in the month of May 2019, accused
has repaid the amount in the presence of DW2 to the
Narayana Reddy and he failed to return three security
cheques. It is evident to note, accused did not give
complaint before police regarding misuse of cheque against
Narayana Reddy or complainant after Ex D2 cheque was
presented and dishonoured on 30-40-2019 before this
cheque is presented and accused being aware of two more
cheque in the hands of complainant or Narayana Reddy did
not give instruction to bank to stop payment as he is not
owing to pay money under Ex P1 cheque. The knowledge of
the dishonour of cheque obviously known to accused prior
to alleged repayment as bank would send SMS about
dishonour of cheques to accused. As accused did not
produce any proof of payment of Rs 30,00,000/- and details
of other three cheques alleged to have given as security,
19 C.C.No.19350/2019
the entire version of accused found an after thought
attempt to avoid payment under Ex P1 cheque.
27. The accused took defence that since accused only
admitted his signature in the cheque and disputed the other
writings. The accused has admitted the fact that he has
voluntarily handed over the cheque as security for Rs
30,00,000/-. Therefore, entire burden casts on accused to
prove the fact of non-existence of liability to pay under the
said cheque. At this stage, it is evident to note in the
Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC
197 observed as follows:
“36. If a signed blank cheque is
voluntarily presented to a payee,
towards some payment, the payee may
fill up the amount and other particulars.
This in itself would not invalidate the
cheque. The onus would still be on the
accused to prove that the cheque was
not in discharge of a debt or liability by
adducing evidence.”
20 C.C.No.19350/2019
28. In the said Judgment itself the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India further observed as follows:
“In the absence of any finding that
the cheque in question was not signed
by the respondent-accused or not
voluntarily made over to the payee and
in the absence of any evidence with
regard to the circumstances in which a
blank signed cheque had been given to
the appellant-complainant, it may
reasonably be presumed that the
cheque was filled in by the appellant-
complainant being the payee in the
presence of the respondent-accused
being the drawer, at his request and/or
with his acquiescence. The subsequent
filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is
not an alteration. There was no change
in the amount of the cheque, its date or
the name of the payee. The High Court
ought not to have acquitted the
respondent-accused of the charge under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.”
21 C.C.No.19350/2019
29. In this case Ex D1 agreement shows that accused
himself voluntarily handed over the Ex D2 cheque to the
complainant towards availing loan of Rs 30,00,000/-. As per
the clause 6 of the Ex D1 agreement, if accused fails to
repay the hand loan in time, complainant shall present the
security cheque to his bank and realize the amount. It
shows the accused having knowledge that though Ex D2
cheque is given in blank to complainant as security, he has
voluntarily agreed to authorizing the complainant to fill up
the date and other details of Ex D2 cheque in order to
present the same before the bank. During cross
examination of PW1, he has deposed that two other
cheques in blank form is given to him towards the same
transaction towards payment. The said amount is not
repaid by accused as per the terms of Ex D1 and Ex D3
documents. Therefore possibility to accused instructing the
complainant to make payments towards the interest as per
Ex D3 is probable to believe. Therefore the act of
complainant is covered under section 20 of N.I.Act and
accused is liable to pay the cheque amount.
22 C.C.No.19350/2019
30. During evidence of Dw1, accused has claimed
demand notice is not served to him and he has disputed his
signatures found in Ex 6 and 7 not belongs to him. The
address mentioned in the demand notice, postal
acknowledgment and deposition of Dw1 shows the same
address. It shows the address of accused is correct. The
accused did not give any complaint before Postal authority
for non delivery of notice and his signatures are forged by
the concerned post man or any other person. As per section
114 (f) of Evidence Act, presumption lies in favour of postal
authority as postal items are delivered to accused. Further
receipt of demand notice to the correct address draws
presumption under section 27 of General Clauses Act.
These presumptions are rebuttable in nature. The burden
casts on accused to rebut said presumption. The address of
accused is admitted. The sending of notice through
registered post to correct address draws presumption under
section 27 of General Clauses Act and it is sufficient for
compliance under section 138 of N.I.Act. The postal
authority have given endorsements shows said notice
23 C.C.No.19350/2019
served during their usual course of business. But accused
did not produce any evidence to prove the said address is
not belong to him and he did not receive the postal item by
leading evidence or lodging protest before postal authority.
In absence of such evidence, the mere denial of signature
of accused on postal document does not rebut the
presumptions under section 114(f) of Evidence Act and
section 27 of General Clauses Act. Therefore said defence of
accused also fails.
31. As per section 139 of the N.I.Act, it shall be
presumed unless contrary is proved, that the holder of
cheque has received the cheque of the nature referred to in
section 138 of N.I. Act for discharge in whole or in part of
any debt or other liability. The Full bench judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa
vs Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 has held
that presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does
indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or
liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by
24 C.C.No.19350/2019
the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and
the signature, the burden casted on the accused to prove
the contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other
liability. The said proposition of law is laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of the P Rasiya vs
Abdul Nazer and another. In the Judgement of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 in
the case of M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian.
In the para 13 of said Judgement the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed as follows:
“13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a
plain reading of its judgement that the trail court
completely overlooked the provisions and failed to
appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under
section 118 and section 139 of N.I.A. The statute
mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused
on the cheque/negotiable instrument are
established, then these “reverse onus” clause
become operative. In such a situation, the obligation
shifts upon the accused to discharge the
presumption imposed upon him. The point of law has
25 C.C.No.19350/2019been crystallized by the court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal
Patel vs State of Gujarath…”
32. Considering aforesaid legal proposition, burden
casted on accused to disprove the case of complainant and
his defence must be found more probable. It is evident to
note accused did not give complaint before police regarding
misuse of cheque. No admissions elicited from the mouth of
PW1 regarding defence of accused. Therefore, defence of
accused is found not probable and his evidence is not
credible to believe. On the other hand complainant has
produced evidence to show he has lend amount of Rs
30,00,000/- to accused and accused has agreed to repay
the same with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum.
33. Once, the initial burden is discharged by the
complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and the
signature, the burden casted on the accused to prove the
contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other
liability. However, in this case accused has failed to make
probable defence to rebut the presumptions. The defence of
26 C.C.No.19350/2019
accused is found self serving statement and it is not
sufficient to rebut the presumptions. Hence, on the basis of
the evidence of PW1 and Ex P1 to 7 documents, the
complainant has proved the case and complainant is
entitled for recovery of the amount as compensation.
34. On considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the complainant has able to establish that Ex.P.1
cheque is issued to discharge liability of repayment of
Rs.4,00,000/- to complainant by the accused. Ex.P1 is
dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in the
account of accused and complainant is entitled for the
cheque amount as compensation. Further, complainant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the
proceedings. The accused No.1 is a Partnership firm.
Therefore, accused No.2 being Partner of accused No.1
Partnership firm is having personal liability to pay. The
accused is not a repeated offender. Hence, there is no need
to award imprisonment term. However, accused is liable to
pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to the State towards
27 C.C.No.19350/2019
litigation expenses. Under these circumstances, this Court
answers Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
35. POINT No.3: For the foregoing reasons stated
in the Points No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty
for the offence punishable under section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C,
the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the
offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused No.1 and 2 is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs 4,20,000/- and in case of
default accused No.2 shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount Rs 4,10,000/-
shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
shall be defray to the State.
28 C.C.No.19350/2019
In view of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. bail
bonds stand extended for 6 months from this
date.
Supply free copy of Judgment to the
accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me
th
19
and signed, pronounced in the Open Court this day of June, 2025 )
Digitally signed
RASHMI by RASHMI H B
HB Date: 2025.06.19
17:35:43 +0530(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
::ANNEXURE::
List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:-
PW1 :- C.Karthik Reddy.
List of Documents marked for Complainant:-
Ex.P1 :- Original Cheque,
Ex.P1(a) :- Signature of Accused,
Ex.P2 :- Bank Endorsement,
Ex.P3 :- Office copy of the Legal Notice,
Ex.P4 & 5 :- Two Postal Receipts,
Ex.P6 & 7 :- Two Postal Acknowledgments,
Ex.P8 :- C/c of Complaint in CC.No.19349/2019,
Ex.P9 :- C/c of Application in O.A.No.570/2017,
Ex.P10 :- C/c of Objection in O.A.No.570/2017,
Ex.P11 :- C/c of Complaint in CC.No.50370/2019,
Ex.P12 :- C/c of Loan Agreement dated 25-08-
2015,
Ex.P13 :- X/copy of Absolute Sale deed,
Ex.P14 :- X/copy of Mortgage by Deposit of Title
Deeds,
29 C.C.No.19350/2019
Ex.P15 :- X/copy of Deposit of Title Deed,
Ex.P16 :- Vakalath,
Ex.P16(a) :- Signature of Accused,
Ex.P17 :- C/c of Deposition in 50370/2019.
List of Witnesses examined for Accused:-
DW1 :- Surendranath Reddy.
List of Documents marked for Accused:-
Ex.D1 :- C/c of Hand Loan Agreement
dated:10-03-2018,
Ex.D2 :- C/c of Original Cheque,
Ex.D3 :- C/c of On Demand Promissory Note,
Ex.D4 :- C/c of Consideration Receipt.
Digitally signed
RASHMI by RASHMI H B
HB Date: 2025.06.19
17:35:56 +0530
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
30 C.C.No.19350/2019