Satyawati vs Kapurchand Dehade - Dishonored Cheque Appeal

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Analysis of the law |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Satyawati W/O. Sidram Pujari vs Kapurchand Tukaram Dehade on 23 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:12059

                                                                CriAppeal-126-2023
                                             -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2023

             Satyawati w/o Sidram Pujari,
             Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
             R/o Railway Colony, Purna,
             Taluka Purna, District Parbhani.
             At present R/o Ganesh Nagar,
             Ramathirth Kadapatti,
             Taluka Jamkhandi, District Bagalkot,
             Karnataka - 587 119.                             ... Appellant
                                                        [Original Complainant]
                   Versus

             Kapurchand Tukaram Dehade
             Age : 45 years, Occu. Railway Service,
             R/o. Railway Quarter No. 420/8,
             Railway Colony, Purna,
             Taluka Purna, District Parbhani.                  ... Respondent
                                              .....
                        Ms. Madhuri B. Jain, Advocate for the Appellant.
                   Mr. Shaikh Tousif Saifuddin, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                              .....

                                     CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                     Reserved on        : 18.03.2026
                                     Pronounced on      :

             JUDGMENT : 1.    Original complainant, who instituted proceedings under [Section

             138](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1823824/) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ' [NI Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1132672/) ')

             against present respondents, has challenged the judgment and order

             of acquittal dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Purna in

             Summary Cri. Case No. No. 140/2014.

CriAppeal-126-2023

1. Above S.C.C. No. 140/2014 was instituted by present appellant

on the premise that, due to friendly relations between accused and

her husband and due to financial crisis and need of accused, hand-

loan of Rs.1,75,000/- was extended for purchasing house at Karmad.

As agreed, towards repayment of the said hand-loan, a cheque was

issued, but on its presentation it was returned dishonored and

therefore steps for issuing statutory notice raising demand were taken

and on failure to pay the cheque amount, above S.C.C. was filed for

commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act which, upon

trial, ended up in acquittal. Hence the appeal.

1. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that, offence

of Section 138 NI Act was made out. That, all essential ingredients

necessary for attracting the said offence were available, but learned

trial court failed to consider the same as well as the law.

1. She further submitted that, issuance of cheque and signature

over it was not disputed or denied and therefore, clearly statutory

presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act were

attracted. According to her, learned trial court failed to consider that

there was no rebuttal evidence from the accused side.

CriAppeal-126-2023

1. She submitted that in spite of legal notice, the same was not

replied and resultantly presumption about availability of legally

enforceable debt ought to have been drawn, but learned trial court

failed to do so. Lastly she submitted that, trial court has acquitted

accused merely on technical ground of limitation and for above

reasons, she urges to interfere by allowing the appeal.

1. In answer to above, learned counsel for accused justifies the

order of acquittal by pointing out that firstly, complainant failed to

prove legally enforceable debt and secondly, even complaint was

beyond limitation and therefore, according to him, the same was

rightly dismissed.

1. After considering the above submissions and going through the

impugned judgment, here, it is emerging that case set up by

complainant/appellant is that there were friendly relations between

her husband and accused. To help the accused to acquire house

property at Karmad, complainant set up a case that, amount of

Rs.1,75,000/- was given on 15.04.2013 and in lieu of the same, for

repayment, subject cheque was issued but it got dishonored and

therefore further consequential steps were taken.

CriAppeal-126-2023

1. Complaint being for offence under Section 138 NI Act,

obviously it is to be first substantiated, and burden of the same is on

complainant to prove, that there was legally enforceable debt. Unless

this initial burden is discharged, accused cannot be called upon to

rebut the same and law is fairly settled to that extent.

1. On visiting cross of complainant, she seems to have answered

that she is educated up to 7 th standard and to be permanent resident

of State of Karnataka. She admitted that her place of residence is

1000 to 1500 k.m. away from Purna. She answered in further cross

that she does not know the amount of salary of the accused. She was

oblivious about number of children of accused and their names as

well as about the property of the family of accused. She was unable to

state about the residential quarter number of accused, his date of

appointment in service, date of superannuation and full maternal

name of wife of accused. She admitted that there were no relations

between her and family of accused.

1. From above answers it is clear that, complainant is completely

oblivious about accused, his family, its details and where he resides.

Surprisingly she has admitted that there were no relations between

her and the family of accused. Therefore, obviously doubt arises about
CriAppeal-126-2023

alleged transaction of extension of hand-loan, that too, to the tune of

Rs.1,70,000/-. There is nothing in black and white about extension of

such huge loan way back in the year 2013.

1. The another aspect which, as pointed out, went against

complainant is her financial capacity to extend above huge loan when

she particularly admitted herself to be a home-maker. As stated

above, there is no distinct supportive evidence about extension of

such hand loan to the accused. When she claims that accused was

friend of her husband, at least efforts ought to have been taken by her

to adduce evidence of her husband, but that does not seem to have

happened. No bank statement or document, showing she withdrawing

such huge amount so as to extend hand-loan, is placed on record.

1. The technical ground on which learned trial court dismissed the

complaint and which is the solitary ground raised in appeal is that,

complaint was not filed within stipulated period of limitation. On

such premises, if record is put to scrutiny, it is emerging that cheque

in question is of 15.03.2015. Bank memo Exhibit 49 is shown to be of

13.05.2014. Therefore, on the said date complainant had knowledge

of dishonor of cheque. Unfortunately demand notice Exhibit 50 is

undated and there is admission to that extent by the complainant in
CriAppeal-126-2023

her cross. Postal receipt shows notice to be dispatched on 10.06.2014

and the same to be received to accused on 13.06.2014. Thus, notice

was issued within a period of one month from receipt of bank memo

i.e. from 13.05.2014. Since period of 15 days was provided for

repayment in the said notice, accused was expected to pay cheque

amount by 28.06.2014. Cause of action therefore arose on said date.

Record shows that complaint was filed on 30.07.2014 and apparently

it was not within a period of one month. Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is technical offence and the protocol and timeline is

expected to be scrupulously adhered to and its failure invites nothing

but dismissal.

1. It is fairly settled position that failure to take steps of filing

complaint under Section 138 of NI Act within a period of one month,

renders the case not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. M/s. Siva Subramanian

(1999) 4 SCC 32 ; K. K. Sidhadhan v. Suresh Kumar (2001) 5 SCC

178 and very recently in the case of M/s. Star Chemicals v. M/s.

Lalwani Enterprises (2023) 4 SCC 678 has observed that, limitation

period for filing complaint under Section 138 is strictly bound by

statutory timelines and that, complainant must adhere to the one

month period from expiry of 15 days notice period of filing complaint.

CriAppeal-126-2023

1. Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act provides mechanism for getting

delay, if any, condoned. However, even such steps does not seem to

have been taken to explain sufficient cause for not maintaining the

timeline for filing complaint.

1. Therefore, apparently, coupled with above reasons, complaint

has not been filed within stipulated period of limitation and therefore

no fault can be found in the impugned order dismissing the

complaint. No point made out on merits to interfere. Hence, following

order :

ORDER

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre