High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1682/2023dismissed

Navneet Aggarwal v. Vaibhav Bhalla

2025-09-24Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra20 pages

-1-

" # # $ %% & '

()*+,- .

,2 /// %% , 4,5 %+'

///) / 6

%+'

/// %% , 4,5 ,2 ///)

/ 7

,2 /// %% , 4,5 %+'

///) /

%+'

/// %% , 4,5 ,2 ///) ./

,2 /// %% , 4,5 %+'

///)

-2- / 6

%+'

/// %% , 4,5 ,2 ///) 7/ 6

,2 /// %% , 4,5 %+'

///) / 7

%+'

/// %% , 4,5 ,2 ///) 8& 9 : 8(/

( 8(

! "

$ "

%%% 8( -

;:<&

( )**+,-.-/ )*01,-.-/ )*1-,-.-/

)*12,-.-/

( --1*,-.-/ --+.,-.-/ --+),-.-/

-/)0,-.-/

" )2 ). -.)+

$ 3 ' 4

" ( 15/+

-.)0

-315*/

-.)0 15*5

-.)0

-.)0 &

)/1

( & 3" )11) 67 89:

" )5 .0 -.-/

$ 4 ;

& "

)/1

& ""

" / 7

,> & =

> =

(

3 3

-4-

-......;,

& <"

< ( 5).)2) .1 )) -.)*

)).....;,

( */*/5) */**)5 */**)*

*/**)0

+.....;, & &

@ "

& " &

)/1

* #

C "

> =

'D,) &

C " ,,

/)/

' '

-5- "

" <

C " ED,)

3'3'3 =

ED,- + ? &

" )2 ). -.)+

)/1

< "

( -152

-.)+ -15*

-.)+ -150

-.)+

-151

-.)+

" "

( ))

-.)+ )2

-.)+ )0

-.)+

-.)+ "

))

" )5 .0 -.-/

) 05 "

-6-

" )5 .0 -.-/

)2 ). -.)+ &

)- 3

< "

)2 ). -.)+

"F <

5......;,

--5....;,

)/ 3

) 05 "

& D & &" "

-7-

& "

)/1

(3 )2

$ 3 '

" "

& 3

&" "

) 05 "

& " C )5 # &

)* "

3 "

2/1

-8- (

, " "

& @9&

G )0 =

)/1

(

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank

-9unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes 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 of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability."

18.

Further, as per scheme of the Act, once the accused admits signatures on the cheque in question, certain presumptions are to be drawn, which result in shifting the onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for

-10consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of the Act, as per which, the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. A combined effect of these provisions is a presumption that the cheques were drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or liability. 3 Devi Tyres Vs. Navab Jan 2001 AIR KAR .HCR 2154 &

" < "&

< &

& "

)+ In Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof, which are summarized as under: (i) Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. (ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of the preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but

-11also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.

;%0< #

" &C

)/+ "

& -.

C &

& &

-......;,

)).....;,

+.....;,

& &

+.....;,

" D ,C " 'D,) > =

-......;, "

" &

-12-

# "

/)/

' '

-/ 7

ED,)

3 "

3 3

-......;,

3 3

-2

-13-

& & 3

< &

& C

" &" &

)/1

! #$# $% ! !& ' ($)

* ++ <

@9& C &

& <

< "

)/1

B <

< &

< -5 7

-14-

& "

)/+

& & I< &

& & & @

ED,) & & " &

& & @ &

3 3

.1 )) -.)*

-......;,

-* (

+.....;,

)2 )- -.)*

-.....;, )1 ./ -.)0

-......;, ";

)).....;,

;

)).....

-15-

+.....

-.....

+.....;, &

-......;,

.* )) -.)*

+.....

J -.....

)).....;, & )2 )- -.)*

)1 ./ -.)0

+.....;,

-......;,

& & -0

)/+

+.....;,

& &

+.....;,

& &

)/1

(3 & -1 D

/)/ ' '

-16-

ED,)

, #

& &

₹

" +.....;, "

< &

)/1

&," -+ D

& -.)0

-17-

" 3 " -.M

) 05 "

< "

-18-

9 "

" &

2-0

' '6

2*0

-.-/:

" &< "

3 ,

- .$

/0 "1 % "-23%

)/1

& &

3 &$ 4 $ 5 6 4 , # -17 8 .53!

-19-

)/1

(3 E

C""

L "

" 3

2-0

'" "

" &

// 3

" & "

;

-2 )) -.-5

-20- &

@ -.M

/5 7

-2 )) -.-5 &

-/ )) -.-5

=8( >

# '

()*+,- .

# $

( ) & $ *+ ( ) &