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
KABC030175262023accused 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
KABC030175262023come 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
KABC030175262023based 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
KABC030175262023ORDER
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
KABC030175262023The 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
KABC03017526202328.07.2025
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
KABC030175262023The bail bond of the accused
stands canceled.
The office is directed to supply free
copy of the judgment to the accused.
XII ACJM, Bengaluru