Bangalore District Court
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance … vs Pramila .M on 21 July, 2025
KABC020022992019 Digitally signed
by
RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
SHETTIGAR
Date:
2025.07.22
10:34:16 +0530
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU (SCCH-10)
Dated This The 21st day of July 2025
PRESENT:
SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR,
B.A., LL.B.,
XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
C.C. No.467/2019
COMPLAINANT : M/s. Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Company Ltd.,
Having is Registered office at:
Dare House, No.2, N S C Bose Road,
Parys, Chennai - 600 001 and
Regional office at:
# 45, Prestige Libra,
Above Passport Seva Kendra,
Lalbag Road,
Bengaluru-560 027,
2 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
Represented by its Power of
Attorney Holder,
Mr. Ravi. T.J.
(By Sri. S.B.G, Advocate)
// Versus //
ACCUSED : 1) Pramila. M,
Old No.93, New No.110,
Kyalasanahalli Village,
Hulimangala post,
Gigani, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru South - 560 083.
2) Chikkamuniyappa. G,
Old No.93, New No.110,
Kyalasanahalli Village,
Hulimangala Post,
Gigani, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru South - 560 083.
(Abated)
(By Sri. V.S. Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
This is the complaint instituted by the complainant
against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act-
1881.
3 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
2. The Case of the complainant as per complaint
averments is as follows:
The complainant is a finance company registered under
the companies Act, 1956. In the course of their financial
services, they introduced Loan for the benefit of its customers.
The accused No.2 approached the complainant company and
availed the loan by entering into a Loan Contract and
purchased MF Tractor / MF 1035 DI vehicle bearing No.KA-51-
T-2115. The accused No.1 stood as a co-applicant / guarantor to
accused No.2. The accused are chronic defaulter in payment of
monthly installments. When the accused No.2 did not pay the
Rs.2,24,917/- as per the contract, the accused No.1 / co-
applicant, towards discharge of their liability, has issued the
cheque for said amount and when the said cheque was
presented, the same has been returned dishonoured with an
endorsement “Funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant
got issued a legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the
4 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10amount covered under the cheque. Despite receipt of notice, the
accused have not paid the cheque amount. Thus, the accused
have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, the cognizance of the offence
was taken and registered criminal case against the accused
and the summons were issued to them. The accused No.1 has
appeared before the Court through her counsel and was
enlarged on bail. Subsequently, plea was recorded and the
substance of the accusation was read over and explained to
her. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Since
accused No.2 reported dead, the case against him is abated.
4. To substantiate its case, the complainant company
examined its authorized signatories as PW-1 and PW-2 and
got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.
5 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
5. Both parties have filed joint memo and prayed to pass
judgment as per the terms of Joint Memo.
6. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials available on
record.
7. Now the points that arise for my determination are as
follows:-
1) Whether the complainant proved, the accused
No.1 to discharge her liability had issued a
cheque for a sum of Rs.2,24,917/- and when the
said cheque was presented to the Bank for
encashment it was returned unpaid with
remarks “Funds insufficient” and despite
service of demand notice, she has not paid the
amount and there by committed the offences
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act ?
2) What order?
8. On the basis of the materials available on record, my
finding to the above points are as follows:
POINT NO.1 & 2: Answered accordingly as per the
final order for the following:
6 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 & 2:
According to the complainant, the accused No.2
approached the complainant company for financial assistance
for purchase of vehicle and based on the request of the accused
No.2, the complainant company sanctioned the loan for
purchase of vehicle and the accused No.1 / co-applicant, in
discharge of their liability, has issued the cheque for a sum of
Rs.2,24,917/- and when the said cheque was presented, same
was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds insufficient”.
Further, the complainant got issued a legal notice calling upon
the accused to pay the cheque amount and despite receipt of
notice, the accused have not paid the cheque amount.
10. To substantiate its case, the complainant company has
examined its authorized signatories as PW-1 and PW-2 and got
marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. PW-1 and PW-2 have
reiterated the contents of the complaint in their affidavit
7 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
evidence about lending of loan to the accused for purchase of
vehicle, issuance of cheque by the accused towards discharge of
her liability and its dishonour and issuance of the legal notice
to the accused calling upon her to pay the amount covered
under cheque and her failure to comply the same.
11. Let me scrutinize the documents relied by the
complainant in order to examine the compliance of statutory
requirements as envisaged under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Ex.P.1 is the Cheque, the Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the
accused, Ex.P.2 is the Bank endorsement, Ex.P.3 is the Legal
notice, Ex.P.4 is Postal receipt, Ex.P.5 is the Returned RPAD
cover, Ex.P.5(a) is the Copy of Legal notice and Ex.P.6 is the
certified copy of GPA.
12. On careful perusal of the documents relied by the
complainant goes to show that, statutory requirements of
Section 138 of N.I. Act is complied with and this complaint is
8 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
filed within time. Further the complainant has discharged his
initial burden by relying oral and documentary evidence. Thus,
the complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory
presumptions enshrined under Section 118 read with Section
139 of N.I. Act.
13. As far as proof of existence of legally enforceable debt is
concerned, it is profitable to refer the decision of full bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Rangappa Vs. Mohan
reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, wherein their lordships
pleased to observe that,
“In the light of these extracts, we are in
agreement with the respondent-claimant that
the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the
Act does indeed include the existence of the
legally enforceable debt or liability”.
14. In another decision reported in, (2015) 8 SCC 378 in the
case of Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari, it is held that
once the accused has admitted the issuance of Cheque as well
9 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
as signature on it, the presumption under Section 139 would be
attracted. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the presumption enshrined under Section 139 of the
N.I. Act is extendable to the existence of legally enforceable
debt. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the ratio
that, when the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are
complied with, presumption shall be drawn in favour of the
complainant. The burden is upon the accused to rebut the
statutory presumptions.
15. In the instant case, it is significant to note that, on
21.07.2025 parties have filed a joint memo stating that, the
matter is settled and accused has agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- in
two installments i.e. Rs.20,000/- on 20.08.2025 and Rs.40,000/-
on 20.09.2025.
16. It is relevant to note that, by filing the joint memo, the
parties have amicably settled the matter. As per Section 147 of
10 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
N.I. Act, every offence punishable under the said Act is
compoundable. In the present case as stated above, the parties
have mutually entered into a compromise and got compounded
the case and the same is reported to the Court by way of joint
memo. On perusal of Joint memo, it is clear that the
compromise arrived between the parties is lawful one. When
the case ends in compromise, it shall have the effect of
acquittal of the accused, as contemplated under Section 320(8)
of Cr.P.C. Since it is a case where, the parties to the
proceedings have compounded the matter, the accused has to
be acquitted. In the similar circumstances, Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka in the case of Shri. Mathikere Jayaram
Shantharam V/s Shri. Pramod. C (Criminal Petition
No.2998/2023 dated 21.06.2024) upheld the judgment of Trial
Court in acquitting the accused. Hence, the points raised for
consideration answered accordingly and I proceed to pass the
following;
11 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
ORDER
Acting under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure and Section 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the accused No.1 is hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable under section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused No.1 shall pay settlement amount
as per the Joint memo dated 21.07.2025.
In the event of default, the complainant is at
liberty to recover the same as if it were a fine, as
provided U/s 431 of Cr.P.C.
The bail bond stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her and
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on 21st day of July
2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., ACJM &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.
12 C.C No.467/2019
SCCH-10
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:-
P.W.1 : Mr. Ravi. T.J. P.W.2 : Mr Ramakrishna. N
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.P.1 : Cheque Ex.P.2 : Signature of the accused Ex.P.2(a) : Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 : Legal notice Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Returned RPAD cover Ex.P.5(a) : Copy of Legal notice Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of GPA
LIST OF WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:-
-NIL-
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., ACJM &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.
[ad_1]
Source link