Bangalore District Court
C M Karthick vs Lohit R P on 24 July, 2025
1
CC.NO.7660/2025
KABC030125862025
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2025
:Present:
Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.7660/2025
Complainant : Sri.Karthik
S/o. P.Mohan @ Mohana chari,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at: 16, Banashanakari Nilaya,
4th Cross, 2nd Main, Shastri Layout,
Near Mahalakshmi Temple,
Abbigere, Bangalore-560090.
(By Sri.K.R.,-Advocate)
V/s
Accused : Sri.Lohit.R.P.,
S/o. Late Pannabha,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at: No.G-1, Iden Menar
Apartment,
8th Cross, Dollors Collony,
Sanjayanagar, Bangalore-560094.
And also:
S.H-8 Road,
Near dairy Shivanna Home,
Darikongale Village,
Malli Patana Hobli,
Arakalagudu Taluke,
Hassan District-573102.
2
CC.NO.7660/2025
And also:
C/o. Smt. Jayalakshmi and
Shankar,
R/at: No.75/36, Sowrabha Nilaya,
4th Cross, Muneshwara Block,
Near Rajeev Gandhi Medical
Hospital,
Chollangara, R.T.Nagara Post,
Bangalore-560032.
(By Sri.A.M.S., - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment : 24.07.2025
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:
3
CC.NO.7660/2025
The accused being the classmate of the
complainant has obtained total sum of
Rs.11,10,000/- from the complainant on
19.09.2023 and also obtained Rs.16,86,935/- for
the marriage of the sister from 11.07.2023 to
27.12.2023. Hence the accused has obtained
hand loan of Rs.27,96,935/-. The accused has
also execute the loan agreement on 10.08.2024
and assured to repay the amount on or before
September 2024. The accused has returned sum
of Rs.10,57,496/- to the complainant and issued
post dated cheque bearing No.019205 dt:
09.10.2024 for sum of Rs.16,86,935/- drawn on
State Bank of India, Nandini Layout Branch. As
per the instruction of the accused, the
complainant presented the said cheque on
09.10.2024 for encashment through his Banker.
But on 11.10.2024 it is dishonoured with an
endorsement as “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter,
the complainant issued demand notice dated:
4
CC.NO.7660/2025
25.10.2024 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 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 7 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7. 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
5
CC.NO.7660/2025
accused appeared through his Counsel and
enlarged on bail. Plea recorded.
4. Subsequently, both parties appeared
before the court and filed a Joint Memo as matter
was amicably settled between the parties. 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
6
CC.NO.7660/2025dispute by way of filing joint
memo for a sum of
Rs.16,86,935/-?
3. What order?
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 Cheque is marked as Ex.P1,
signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P1(a),
Bank Endorsement is marked as Ex.P2, Demand
Notice is marked as Ex.P-3, Postal Receipts is
marked as Ex.P4, Postal Acknowledgment is
marked at Ex.P5, Unserved RPAD Envelops are
marked as Ex.P6 & Ex.P7.
7
CC.NO.7660/2025
9. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 to P7
documents produced by the complainant, prima-
facie it goes to show that the complainant has
discharged initial burden of proving issuance of
cheque, presentation of Ex.P1 cheque, bouncing of
cheque 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 “.
8
CC.NO.7660/2025
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
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
9
CC.NO.7660/2025circumstances which they rely and also
held, it is not necessary for the accused to
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 Cheque
and also he has not disputed that Ex.P1 Cheque
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
18.07.2025, both the complainant and accused
filed Joint Memo and submitted that they have
settled the matter for a sum of Rs.16,86,935/-.
As per settlement accused has agreed to pay the
said amount within three months i.e., on or
10
CC.NO.7660/2025
before 20.10.2025. 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,
based on certain benefits that the
settlement agreement postulates. Once
parties have voluntarily entered in to
11
CC.NO.7660/2025agreement 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 his
stand and he is liable to pay the amount as
agreed by him.
16. That apart, the material placed on
record by the complainant discloses that the
complainant has complied the mandatory
requirements of section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act and as the accused has not
cross examined PW1 to disprove the case of the
12
CC.NO.7660/2025
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: 18.07.2025, 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
him. 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:-
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred under
Section 278(2) of The Bharathiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable
13
CC.NO.7660/2025U/s.138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.16,86,935/- as specified in the
Joint Memo.
As per joint memo accused shall pay
the said amount within three months i.e.,
on or before 20.10.2025 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.
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 24th day of July, 2025).
(Smt. Dhanalakshmi R)
XII A.C.J.M., BENGALORE.
14
CC.NO.7660/2025
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW 1 : C.M.Karthik
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.6&7 : Unserved RPAD Envelops
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
-Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Digitally signed by
- Nil- DHANALAKSHMI
DHANALAKSHMI R
R
Date: 2025.07.24
16:24:06 +0530
(Smt. Dhanalakshmi R)
XII A.C.J.M., BENGALORE.
15
CC.NO.7660/2025
16
CC.NO.7660/2025
24.07.2025
For judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separate Order)
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred under
Section 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.16,86,935/- as specified in the Joint
Memo.
As per joint memo accused shall pay the
said amount within three months i.e., on or
before 20.10.2025 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.
17
CC.NO.7660/2025
The office is directed to supply free copy
of the judgment to the accused.
XII ACJM, Bengaluru