Bangalore District Court
Onionlife Private Limited (Karmalife) vs Mavlikraft Technologies Private … on 13 August, 2025
KABC0C0371122023
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
Present : SANTHOSH S.KUNDER, B.A.,LLM,
XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C.No.62614/2023
Complainant M/s Onionlife Private Limited
("Karmalife"),
A Company Registered under Companies
Act, 2013,
Having its registered office at:
Indiqube Orion, First Floor,
24th Main, Garden Layout,
Sector-2, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru-560102.
And Corporate Office at:
No.1497, Ground Floor, 19th Main Road,
Sector-I, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru-560102.
Represented by its
Head Finance,
Amit Sarda, S/o Chiranji Lal Sarda.
(By M/s Aryasumantra Legal Advisors
LLP, Advocates)
V/s
Accused 1. M/s. Mavlikraft Technologies Private
Limited,
House No.18/17-A, Azad Nagar,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007.
2 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
2. Deepak Parasher,
Founder & CEO,
M/s. Mavlikraft Technologies Private
Limited,
House No.18/17-A, Azad Nagar,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007.
3. Saroj Parashar,
Director,
M/s. Mavlikraft Technologies Private
Limited.,
House No.18/17-A, Azad Nagar,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007.
(By Sri D.R.Sudhindra Bhat, Advocate)
Offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
Final Order Accused are held guilty and convicted
This complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C,
for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Complaint averments in brief:
2.1. Complainant is a company registered under
Companies Act, 2013. It is an artificial intelligence enabled
fintech platform, which offers credit line/facility through
its NBFC Partners to blue collared and gig (temporary)
workers, which indeed strengthens employer-employee
bounding and retention of workforce.
3 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
2.2. Accused No.1 is a company which is in the
business of delivery services. Accused No.2 and 3 are its
Directors, responsible for the business and its day-to-day
affairs. Accused No.1 through its Director-accused No.2
had entered into 'Platform Services Agreement' dated
17.03.2022 ('agreement') with the complainant. In order to
improvise retention amongst direct/indirect employees
('employees') accused No.1 and 2 had expressly agreed to
avail the services of complainant through its online
Platform ('Platform'), where the complainant through its
Platform connected NBFC's who are willing to lend/offer
credit line/lend money to certain eligible employees (direct/
indirect) of accused No.1. Vide agreement, accused No.1
and 2 had agreed to deduct the monies payable to the
complainant by the employees out of the payables payable
to the employees by accused No.1.
2.3. That the complainant, on the basis of aforesaid
covenants of accused No.1 and 2, had offered credit line
and lent money to employees through its Platform by one of
its NBFC partner-M/s Mamata Projects Private Limited to
the employees of accused No.1. The employees who had
availed loan through complainant's Platform had
authorized accused No.1 by way of 'Payment Deduction
Authorization Undertaking' authorizing accused No.1 to
deduct such money/EMIs towards repayment of loan from
the payables (salary/wages) to be paid to the employees
and in turn pay/return the same to the complainant.
4 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
2.4. That the accused No.1 represented by its
authorized representatives and accused No.1 on several
dates had confirmed to the complainant through various
correspondences regarding deduction of such monies from
the payables payable to the employees. That the accused
No.1 and 2 despite deducting such monies from the
employees, failed to return the same to the complainant
towards fulfillment of their obligations. Despite several
reminders and follow-ups made by the complainant
through telephone, WhatsApp chats, emails, accused No.1
has failed to clear the same. After, several follow-ups, in
the month of July 2023, accused No.1 and 2 assured to
make part payment in the month of July and issued a
cheque bearing No.000879 dated 30.08.2023 for
₹58,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank, Pitampura Branch,
Delhi, in favour of the complainant.
2.5. The complainant has presented the cheque
through its banker, viz., IDFC First Bank Limited,
Residency Road Branch, Bengaluru. But, it was dishonored
and returned unpaid on 01.09.2023 for the reason 'funds
insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a legal
notice dated 27.09.2023 through RPAD calling upon the
accused No.1 to 3 to make payment of amount covered
under dishonored cheque within 15 days from the date of
receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served on the
accused No.1 to 3 on 03.10.2023. Despite service of notice
5 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
accused have neither reply nor complied with demand
made in the notice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
3. This court took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and proceeded to
examine the authorized signatory of the complainant on
oath. As prima facie case made out, vide order dated
28.12.2024, criminal case was ordered to be registered
against accused No.1 to 3 and they were summoned.
4. Pursuant to the process, accused No.2 and 3
have appeared before the court and they were admitted to
bail. After compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, this court
recorded their plea on 22.08.2024. They have pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. On the same day, their
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., recorded. They
have denied the incriminating evidence.
5. Sworn statement of authorized signatory of the
complainant is treated as evidence for complainant.
Documents at Ex.P-1 to 13 marked for the complainant.
6. Accused have neither cross-examined PW-1
nor led defence evidence.
7. Advocate for complainant addressed argument.
There was no representation for accused. Therefore, case is
posted for judgment.
8. I have perused the records.
9. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the complainant has proved
that accused have issued cheque
6 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
bearing No.000879 dated 30.08.2023
for ₹58,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI
Bank, Pitampura Branch, in favour of
the complainant towards discharge
legally recoverable debt/liability and
the said cheque was dishonored for the
reason 'funds insufficient' and in spite
of service of statutory notice dated
27.09.2023, accused have failed to pay
the amount covered under the cheque
and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What order?
10. The above points are answered as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: The complainant is contending that
the accused No.2 in the capacity of Director of accused
No.1, entered into a 'Platform Services Agreement' dated
17.03.2022 with the complainant and availed the services
of the complainant company through its online Platform.
Complainant is contending that, it has lent money to the
employees of accused No.1 through one of its NBFC
partner-M/s Mamata Projects Private Limited. It is
contended that employees of accused No.1 who availed
loan through complainant's Platform, had authorized
accused No.1 by way of 'Payment Deduction Authorization
Undertaking', authorizing the accused No.1 to deduct loan
EMIs from the salary/wages to be paid to them and in turn
7 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
pay the same to the complainant. Complainant is
contending that in spite of availing the services of the
complainant and deducting such monies from the payables
of its employees, accused have failed to remit the money to
the complainant and that, after several follow-ups, accused
No.2 has issued the subject cheque, which, on
presentation, dishonored for the reason 'funds insufficient'
and that in spite of service of statutory demand notice, the
accused have failed to pay the dishonored cheque amount
to the complainant.
12. In order to substantiate the case, the
complainant has examined its Head-Finance/authorized
signatory as PW-1. As many as 13 documents marked
through him. Ex.P-1 is subject cheque; Ex.P.2 is bank
endorsement dated 01.09.2023; Ex.P-3 is copy of demand
notice dated 27.09.2023; Ex.P.4 to 6 are postal receipts;
Ex.P-7 to 9 are postal track consignment reports; Ex.P.10
is e-mail sent by postal department attached with proof of
delivery; Ex.P.11 is copy of board resolution of
complainant; Ex.P.12 is copy of certificate of incorporation;
and Ex.P13 is Section 65(B) certificate.
13. It is to be noted that accused has not cross-
examined PW-1 and the case of the complainant has gone
unchallenged and testimony of PW-1 remained unrebutted.
Prima facie, it appears from the cheque at Ex.P-1 that is
drawn from the bank account of the accused No.1
company and accused No.2 is the signatory to the said
8 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
cheque. Ex.P2 shows that the cheque was presented for
encashment well within its validity period and was
dishonored for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter,
the complainant sent a demand notice dated 27.09.2023
through RPAD calling upon the accused No.1 to 3 to pay
the dishonored cheque amount. Ex.P7 to 9 prove that the
notices were delivered to accused on 03.10.2023. Proof of
delivery annexed to Ex.P10 also shows that the registered
notices were delivered to accused No.1 to 3. Accused have
not complied with the demand made in the notice.
Therefore, by statutory fiction, offence under Section 138 of
N.I.Act is deemed to have been committed.
14. Section 138 of the Act provides that a drawer of
a cheque is deemed to have committed the offence, if the
following ingredients are fulfilled:
(i) A cheque drawn for the payment of any
amount of money to another person;
(ii) The cheque is drawn for the discharge of the
"whole or part" of any debt or other liability.
"Debt or other liability" means legally
enforceable debt or other liability; and
(iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid
because of insufficient funds.
15. However, unless the stipulations in the proviso
are fulfilled, the offence is not deemed to be committed.
The conditions in the proviso are as follows:
9 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
(i) The cheque must be presented in the bank
within six months from the date on which it
was drawn or within the period of its validity;
(ii) The holder of the cheque must make a
demand for the payment of the "said amount of
money" by giving a notice in writing to the
drawer of the cheque within thirty days from the
receipt of the notice from the bank that the
cheque was returned dishonoured; and
(iii) The holder of the cheque fails to make the
payment of the "said amount of money" within
fifteen days from the receipt of the notice.
16. It is also apt to note that a negotiable instrument
including a cheque carries presumptions in terms of
Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the N.I.Act.
(i) Section 118 of the N.I.Act provides;
Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments; Until the contrary is
proved, the following presumptions shall
be made;
(a) of consideration that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and that every such
instrument, when it has been accepted,
indorsed negotiated or transferred was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred for consideration:"
(ii) Section 139 of the N.I.Act provides
as follows:
'Presumption in favour of holder it shall
be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of a cheque
10 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
received the cheque of the nature
referred to in Section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability".
17. Thus, the combined effect of Section 118(a) and
Section 139 of N.I.Act raises a presumption in favour of the
holder of the cheque that he has received the same for
discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
18. In Krishna Janadhan Bhat V/s Dattatraya
G.Hegde; (2008) 4 SCC 54, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:-
"The presumption mandated by Section 139
includes a presumption that there exists a
legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of
course in the nature of a rebuttable
presumption and it is open to the accused to
raise a defence wherein the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested."
19. In Rangappa V/s Sri.Mohan; (2010) 11 SCC
441, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, ordinarily in
cheque bouncing cases, what the courts have to consider is
whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in
Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the
accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption
contemplated by Section 139 of the Act.
20. From the ratio laid down in the above
judgments, it can be gathered that the presumption
mandated by Section 139 of NI Act includes a presumption
11 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
that there exist a legally enforceable debt or liability. Of
course, this presumption is rebuttal by the accused by
making out a probable defence.
22. As noted above, accused have not contested the
case put forth by the complainant and thereby, signature
appearing on the cheque remained undisputed. Therefore,
it is deemed that signature on the cheque is admitted and
thus, it is proved. Once signature of an accused on the
cheque is proved or established, then 'reverse onus'
clauses become operative. In such a situation, the burden
shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption
imposed upon him/her. This is held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kalamani Tex and Anr. V/s Balasubramanian,
2021 SCC Online SC 75. Thus, burden is on the accused
to discharge the mandatory presumption under Section
118(a) and 139 of NI Act. But, hardly any attempt made by
the accused to discharge the statutory burden.
23. In this case, accused No.1 is the company. In
complaint as well as in the evidence affidavit of PW-1, it is
specifically pleaded/deposed that accused No.2 and 3 are
the Directors and responsible for the business and day-to-
day affairs of accused No.1. Section 141 of NI Act provides
that, if the person committing an offence under Section
138 is a company, every person who, at the time the
offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business
of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed
12 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly. As noted
above, the cheque was drawn from the account of accused
No.1. Accused No.2 is the signatory to the cheque. He and
accused No.3 are being Directors, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, they along with accused No.1
company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, this
court holds that the complainant has proved that the
accused have committed the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in
the Affirmative.
24. Point No.2:-Punishment prescribed for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years
or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque or with both. In the present case, Platform Services
Agreement was entered into between the parties on
17.03.2022 and subject cheque was drawn on 30.08.2023.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, date
of cheque and the rate of interest stipulated under Section
80 of NI Act, this court is of the considered view that it is
just and desirable to impose fine of ₹88,00,000/- and out
of the said amount, it is just and proper to award a sum of
₹87,90,000/- as compensation to the complainant as
provided under Section 357(1) (b) of Cr.P.C and the
remaining sum of ₹10,000/- shall go to State. In view of
13 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
the findings recorded above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
accused No.1 to 3 are held guilty and
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused are together sentenced to pay a
fine of ₹88,00,000/-. In default to pay fine,
accused No.2 and 3 shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
Out of the realized fine amount, a sum of
₹87,90,000/- is ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation and the
remaining sum of ₹10,000/- shall be remitted
to State.
Bail bonds executed by accused No.2 and 3
shall stands cancelled.
Office to supply a free copy of this judgment
to accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised
corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th
day of August, 2025)
( SANTHOSH S.KUNDER )
XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
14 CC.No.62614/2023
KABC0C0371122023
ANNEXURES
List of witness examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 Amit Sarda
List of documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque bearing No.000879
Ex.P.1(a) Signature
Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement dated 01.09.2023
Ex.P.3 Copy of legal notice dated 27.09.2023
Ex.P.4 to 6 Postal receipts-3
Ex.P.7 to 9 Postal track consignment reports-3
Ex.P.10 E-mail sent by postal department attached with
proof of delivery
Ex.P.11 Extract of Board resolution of complainant
dated 02.09.2023
Ex.P.12 Copy of certificate of incorporation of
complainant
Ex.P.13 Section 65(B) certificateList of witness examined for the defense Nil
List of documents marked for the defense NilXIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.