Manjunath Reddy.Y N vs Punith B M on 28 July, 2025

0
2


Bangalore District Court

Manjunath Reddy.Y N vs Punith B M on 28 July, 2025

                                   1
                                                   CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023




        IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
                  MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE

                   Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
                                :Present:
                             Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R

                       XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
                               Bangalore.

                          C.C.No.10247/2023

      Complainant :        Sri.Manjunath reddy.Y.N.,
                           S/o. Y.C. Narayana reddy,
                           Aged about 56 years,
                           R/at: No.1A, Vimoksha,
                           Lakshmipura Main Road,
                           8th Cross, Abbigeri,
                           Bangalore-560090.

                           (By Sri.V.K.N.D.,-Advocate)

                                  V/s

      Accused      :       Sri.Punith.B.M,
                           S/o. Late. Mahadevappa,
                           Aged about years,
                           R/at: No.Old Post Office Road,
                           Nagamangala Mandya,
                           Karnataka-571432.

                           Working at Group D
                           Attender,
                           3rd Additional district & Sessions
                           Judge, District Court Complex,
                           Chickaballapura.

                           (By Sri.N.K., - Advocate )
                                       2
                                                     CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023




       Plea of accused:               Pleaded not guilty

       Final Order:                   Accused is Convicted

       Date of judgment :             28.07.2025



                               JUDGMENT

1. This case is registered U/sec. 200 of Cr.P.C

based on the written complaint given by the

complainant against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as ‘ N I Act’

for the purpose of brevity).

2. The brief facts of the complainant case is

as under:

The complainant and accused being friends,

the accused sought for hand loan. Accordingly,

the complainant has given Rs.1,00,000/- in the

month of November 2022, Rs.2,50,000/- in the

month of July 2021 and Rs.10,000/-. Hence the
3
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

accused has received total sum of Rs.3,60,000/-

as a hand loan from the complainant. The

complainant when he was in the need of money,

demanded for repayment and the accused has

issued a cheque bearing No.670004 dt:

27.01.2023 for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and another

cheque bearing No.670017 dt: 27.01.2023 for

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on SBI Bank, R.V.

Complex, Chikkaballapur. As per the instruction

of the accused, the complainant presented the

said cheques for encashment through his Banker.

But on 31.01.2023 it is dishonoured with an

endorsement as “Funds Exceeds Arrangement”.

Thereafter, the complainant issued demand notice

dated: 27.02.2022 to the accused by calling upon

him to pay the amount covered under the cheque

within the stipulated period. Inspite of service of

notice, accused failed to repay the amount

covered under cheque. Hence, the complainant is
4
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

constrained to file the present complaint against

the accused for the offence punishable under

section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. After filing of the complaint, The court has

perused the complaint and annexed documents

and has recorded the sworn statement of the

complainant and marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8. As there were sufficient materials to

constitute the offence, cognizance was taken and

this court proceeded to pass an order for issuing

process against the accused. Thereafter, the case

is registered against the accused and summons

issued. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the

accused appeared through her Counsel and

enlarged on bail. Plea recorded.

4. Subsequently, when the matter was

posted for cross of PW1, both parties appeared
5
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

before the court and filed a Joint Memo as matter

was amicably settled between the parties out of

the court. The parties submitted before the court

that they agreed for the terms of Joint memo.

Both the side prayed to pass judgment taking into

consideration the joint memo filed by the parties.

5. Heard arguments and perused the

material on record.

6. On the basis of the contents of the

complaint the following points arise for

consideration :

1. Whether the complainant proves
that the accused has committed
an offence punishable U/s.138
N.I Act as alleged in the
complaint?

2. Whether both the complainant
and the accused have settled the
dispute by way of filing joint
memo for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-?

3. What order?

6

CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

7. The above points are answered as follows:

Point No.1 & 2 : In the affirmative.

Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following.

REASONS

8.Point No.1&2 : In-order to prove the case,

the complainant got himself examined as PW1 by

filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination.

Through PW1 the Cheques are marked as Ex.P1 &

Ex.P2, signature of the accused is marked as

Ex.P1(a) & Ex.P2(a), Bank Endorsement is marked

as Ex.P3, Demand Notice is marked as Ex.P-4,

Postal Receipts is marked as Ex.P5, Unserved

RPAD Envelops are marked as Ex.P6 to Ex.P8.

9. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 to P8

documents produced by the complainant, prime-

facie it goes to show that the complainant has

discharged initial burden of proving issuance of
7
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

cheque, presentation of Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 cheques,

bouncing of cheques and issuance of notice. At

this juncture, this court find it relevant to quote

ruling reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, decided

between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“Presumption under Negotiable
Instrument includes the section 139 Act,
presumption of 1881 of the existence of
legally enforceable debt or liability. That
presumption is required to be honoured and
if it is not so done, the entire basis of making
these provision will be lost. Therefore, it has
been held that, it is for the Accused to
explain his case and defend it once the fact of
cheque bouncing is prima-facie established.
The pain is on him to disprove the allegations
once a prima-facie case is made out by the
complainant “.

10. In the aforesaid ruling the Hon’ble Apex

court has held that once the complainant

establishes the bouncing of cheque, then it is for
8
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

the accused to disprove the allegations and also it

is for him/her to rebut the presumption as

contemplated under section 139 of Act by placing

acceptable evidence.

11. It is to be noted that, accused has not

stepped into the witness box to disprove the case

of the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex court in the

ruling reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 491

decided between Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa

at para 25(3)(4) and (5) has categorically held

that :

” to rebut the presentation, it is open for the
accused to rely on evidence led by him or the
accused can rely on the material submitted
by the complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of
preponderance of probabilities can be drawn
not only from the material brought on record
by the parties, but also by reference to the
circumstances which they rely and also
held, it is not necessary for the accused to
9
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

come in the witness box in support of
defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden.”

12. In the light of the principle laid down

above, it is not necessary for the accused to step

into the witness box to disprove the case of the

complainant. It is worth to note that the accused

has not disputed his signature at Ex.P1 & Ex.P2

Cheques and also he has not disputed that

Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 Cheques does not belongs to him.

That apart, the accused has not placed any

material before the court to disprove the

transaction in question.

13. It is required to be noted that, on

10.07.2025, both the complainant and accused

filed Joint Memo and submitted that they have

settled the matter for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. As

per settlement accused has agreed to pay the

said amount in 4 monthly installments of
10
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

Rs.30,000/- each on 10.07.2025, 25.09.2025

and 25.11.2025 respectively and Rs.2,10,000/-

on 30.03.2026. The learned counsel for both

parties submitted that they do not have

objection to pronounce judgment for the amount

agreed.

14. It is to noted that, in the ruling

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 925 decided

between Jimpex Pvt Ltd., V/s Manoj Goel

decided on 08/10/2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court

at para 38 has held that:

” when a complainant party enters in to
a compromise with the accused, it may
be for a multitude of reasons, higher
compensation, faster recovery of money,
uncertainty of trial and strength of the
complainant among others. A
complainant enters in to a settlement
with open eyes and undertakes the risk
of the accused failing to honour the
cheque issued pursuant to settlement,
11
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

based on certain benefits that the
settlement agreement postulates. Once
parties have voluntarily entered in to
agreement and to abide by the
consequence of non compliance
settlement agreement, they cannot be
allowed to reverse the effect of the
agreement by pursuing the both original
complaint and the subsequent complaint
arising such non-compliance. The
settlement agreement subsumes original
complaint.”

15. In the light of the principle laid down

above, the complainant and accused have filed

memo stating that they have settled the matter.

Therefore, the accused cannot deviate from her

stand and she is liable to pay the amount as

agreed by her.

16. That apart, the material placed on

record by the complainant discloses that the

complainant has complied the mandatory
12
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

requirements of section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and as the accused has not

cross examined PW1 to disprove the case of the

complainant and also taking note of the joint

memo filed by accused, it could be concluded

that accused has failed to rebut the

presumption as contemplated U/sec 139 of

Negotiable Instrument Act by placing acceptable

evidence. However, taking note of the settlement

arrived between the parties as per Joint Memo

dated: 10.07.2025, this court is of the view that

there is no impediment for this court to direct

the accused to make the payment as agreed by

her. Accordingly, this court answers the Point

No.1 & 2 in the Affirmative.

17. Point No.3 :- In view of findings to the

Points No.1 & 2, this court proceed to pass the

following:-

13

CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

ORDER

In exercise of power conferred U/sec.
278(2) of The Bharathiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay
fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- as specified in the
Joint Memo.

As per joint memo accused shall
be paid said settlement amount in 4
installments as mentioned in the Joint
Memo.

In default, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 6 months.

The fine amount shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation Under
Section.357 of Cr.P.C.

The Joint memo shall form part and
parcel of this judgment.

The bail bond of the accused
stands canceled.

14

CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

The office is directed to supply free
copy of the judgment to the accused.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and
signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of July, 2025).

(Smt. Dhanalakshmi R)
XII A.C.J.M., BENGALORE.

ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

PW 1 : Sri.Manjunath Reddy.Y.N
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

         Ex.P.1 & P2        :       Cheques
         Ex.P.3             :       Endorsement
         Ex.P.4             :       Legal Notice
         Ex.P.5             :       Postal Receipt
         Ex.P.6-8           :       Unserved RPAD Envelops

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-

-Nil-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:

Digitally signed

– Nil- by
DHANALAKSHMI DHANALAKSHMI
R R
Date: 2025.07.29
17:44:31 +0530

(Smt. Dhanalakshmi R)
XII A.C.J.M., BENGALORE.

15

CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023
16
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023
17
CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

28.07.2025
For judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separate Order)
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred U/sec.
278(2) of The Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 the accused is convicted for the
offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- as
specified in the Joint Memo.

As per joint memo accused shall
be paid said settlement amount in 4
installments as mentioned in the Joint
Memo.

In default, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 6 months.

The fine amount shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation Under
Section.357 of Cr.P.C.

The Joint memo shall form part and
parcel of this judgment.

18

CC.NO.10247/2023
KABC030175262023

The bail bond of the accused
stands canceled.

The office is directed to supply free
copy of the judgment to the accused.

XII ACJM, Bengaluru



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here