Smt.M.Satya Kumari

CC.13/2025 1 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 5th day of March, 2026

C.C.No.13 of 2025

Between:

S.V.Narasimham, S/o S.N.V.Gopala Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, residing at D.No.11-108, Near Pedda Gudi,

Penamaluru, Krishna District. ...Complainant.

(Amended as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1427/2025, dt.05/08/2025).

A N D

V.Srinivas, S/o Krishna, Hindu, aged about 40 years, residing at Plot No.35, D.No.3-57, 3rd Cross, Vishnupuram Colony,

Poranki, Krishna District. ...Accused.

This case is coming on 03/03/2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vemuri Ravi Sankar, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri Yaram Manoj Raja, Advocate for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short “N.I. Act”) against the sole accused.

2.The accused is a Sales Manager in M.K. Constructions & Developers at

Ramachandra Nagar, Mahanadu Road, Vijayawada and one Jangam Wilson Raju worked as Marketing Head in that company. Both have acquaintance with the complainant through one Durga Prasad, resident of Vijayawada, who is his co- employee. Out of said acquaintance with the complainant the accused asked him to invest some amount in the above said company. The complainant is not interested to invest the amount in the above said company. Both of the above said persons insisted the complainant and stated that the said ventures are very profitable and the

CC.13/2025 2 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA. accused requested the complainant to invest the amount in the said ventures and also stated that there will be no loss for the invested amount. Believing the words of accused, the complainant invested huge amount in the said ventures with the personal assurance of the accused.

The accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15/11/2020 as hand loan by way of cash in the presence of Jangam Wilson Raju and Alamuri

Bhadraiah, S/o Kasim Peera, resident of Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, for the purpose of family expenses agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the complainant or to his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by and on behalf of the complainant, at last the accused has issued a cheque in the name of the complainant bearing No.003861, dt.17/12/2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Mahanadu Road Branch, Vijayawada, towards part payment of the above said hand loan debt. The complainant presented the above said cheque through his banker i.e., HDFC Bank Ltd., M.G. Road Branch, Vijayawada-10.

Surprisingly, said cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” with a returned memo dt.19/12/2022. The complainant received the returned cheque along with memo form his bank authorities on 24/12/2022 by Blue Dot Courier. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.20/01/2023 through his counsel demanding the accused for payment of the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque through registered post. The accused got issued a reply notice to the complainant on 04/02/2023 with all false and untenable allegations. Hence, the complaint.

3.After satisfying that there are grounds to proceed with, on 18/04/2023 the case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I.

Act and issued summons for appearance of the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. on 19/03/2025, accusation against the accused was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

CC.13/2025 3 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA. section 138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and one witness examined as PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.

6.On closure of complainant side evidence, this court examined the accused under Sec 313 Cr.P.C on 04/12/2025. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him and reported defence evidence. DW1 was examined and

Ex.D1 and D2 are marked on behalf of accused.

7.Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque from the account maintained by him towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.

2. Whether PW1 presented Ex.P1 cheque within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

3. Whether the complainant made a demand for payment of the said amount covered under Ex.P1 by giving a notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

4. Whether the accused having received the legal notice failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice.

5. To what relief.

8.POINT NO.1:

Complainant/PW1 deposed that accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum in the presence of one Jangam Wilson Raju and Alamudi Badarayya. In order to establish the same, complainant himself is examined as PW1 and said Badarayya was examined as PW2. The evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW2 regarding the said transaction.

It is the further contention of complainant that on repeated demands accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- towards part payment of above said hand loan. In order to establish the same PW1 exhibited Ex.P1 cheque on his behalf.

9.Learned counsel for the accused contended that no transaction took place

CC.13/2025 4 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA. between the complainant and accused and the accused also invested Rs.7,00,000/- in M.K. Constructions and Developers and to that effect he got issued a reply notice.

It is the further case of accused that the complainant availed the blank cheque of accused and falsely foisted the present case against him.

10. As seen from cross examination of PW1 he admitted about the business transaction i.e., investment of money by him along with others in the said company.

PW1 denied a suggestion that accused never issued Ex.P1 cheque and the blank cheque of accused was availed by him to file a false case against accused.

One Jangam Wilson Raju was examined as DW1 on behalf of accused.

According to complainant said hand loan was given to the accused in the presence of PW2 and DW1. Though PW2 supported the version of PW1, DW1 denied the transaction. As seen from the evidence of DW1 another case was filed against DW1 by the complainant. Hence, there is every possibility of not supporting the version of complainant by DW1.

The main contention of accused is that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant and his cheque was misused by the complainant. In order to establish the version of accused he examined DW1 on his behalf and got marked

Ex.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of Calendar and Judgment in

CC.156/2024, on the file of court of II Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Ex.D2 is the true copy of FIR in Cr.No.448/2021 along with report of DW1. Even if exhibits D1 and D2 are true they are no way relevant to the present case. It is for the accused to establish his defence version that he got issued blank documents to the complainant and the same were pressed into service. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 in support of the contention of accused.

Then it is for the accused to establish that he gave his blank document to the complainant, and by availing the same the complainant filed present complaint. But he did not adduce any cogent evidence in support of his version and did not elicit anything in his favour from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2. Since the accused did not specifically deny the signature on Ex.P1 cheque, and moreover he himself admitted that Ex.P1 is of him, and the same was given for the balance amount to the company, unless and until the same is proved, it can be presumed

CC.13/2025 5 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA. that the cheque was given by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The offence under section 138 NI Act can be said to have been committed if only a cheque issued for repayment of legally enforceable debt is not honoured, when presented. Under section 138 N.I.Act, the court has to draw a presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque received the same for discharge of whole or part of any debt or other liability. Section 139 of N.I. Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque with regard to the legally enforceable debt.

Hence, it can be said that the cheque was issued by the accused from the account maintained by him. Then it is for the accused to rebut the presumption and to discharge his burden.

11.Point Nos: 2 to 4:

Ex.P1 cheque is dated 17/12/2022 and the same is dishonoured vide Ex.P2 cheque return memo dated 19/12/2022 with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

Ex.P2 cheque return memo established the said fact. Hence, Ex.P1 cheque was presented within the period of its validity and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

12.PW1 deposed that Ex.P3 legal notice was issued on 20/01/2023 after dishonour of Ex.P1. As seen from Ex.P3 it is clear that PW1 demanded the accused within thirty days after receipt of information from the bank regarding return of cheque under Ex.P2 for payment of due amount covered under Ex.P1. Hence, there is a valid notice.

13.The accused did not file any document to establish the alleged defence.

Hence, the evidence elicited during the cross examination of PW1 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the points are answered in favour of the complainant and against accused.

14.POINT NO.5:

The evidence of PW1 and contents of Exs.P1 to P5 established that there is legally enforceable debt and Ex.P1 was issued by the accused drawn from his

CC.13/2025 6 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA. account towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the said cheque was dishonoured as “Funds Insufficient”. The evidence of PW1 and Exs.P3 and P4 established that there is a legally valid notice to the accused. Hence, the evidence of

PW1 is consistent with the contents of Exs.P1 to P5 and complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.138 of N.I.Act.

15.In the result, I find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act and accused is convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 5th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

16.When the accused was questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he has two children and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

17.Since the offence under section 138 N.I.Act is white collar offence, taking a lenient view would send a wrong signal to the society at large. Hence,this court is not inclined to take a lenient view and the accused is also not entitled to benefit under the provisions of P.O. Act.

18.The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months (6 months) and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Only), in default, accused shall under go SI for a period of 45 days for the offence punishable under sec.138 of N.I. Act.

19.The entire fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), shall be paid as compensation to the complainant i.e., PW1 under 357 of Cr.PC. Remand period of accused is nil.

20. The accused is informed about his right of preferring an appeal against this

CC.13/2025 7 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-03-2026 VJA. judgment and further, when informed about his right to free legal aid, the accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer an appeal.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ComplainantFor Accused

PW1 : S.V.NarasimhamDW1 : Jangam Wilson Raju PW2 : Alamuri Badarayya

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.No.DateDescription of Document

Ex.P117-12-2022 Cheque No.003861 drawn on Axis Bank, Mahanadu Road Branch, Vijayawada in favour of PW1 by the accused for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.P219-12-2022 Cheque return memo.

Ex.P320-01-2023 Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.P431-01-2023 Acknowledgment.

Ex.P504-02-2023 Reply notice got issued by the accused.

For Accused: - Nil -

Ex.No.DateDescription of Document

Ex.D1- -Certified copy of Calendar and Judgment in

CC.No.156/2024 on the file of court of II Special

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Ex.D212-06-2021 True copy of FIR in Cr.No.448/2021 along with report of DW1.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI ACJM, VJA.

CC.6/2025 1 VI ACJM,

Dt.6-02-2026 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada

Friday, the 6th day of February, 2026.

C.C.No.6 of 2025

Between:

Bommareddy Amarnadh Reddy, S/o Janardhan Reddy, Hindu, aged 42 years, Business, R/o D.No.33-5-18, Opp. Ayurvedhik

Center, Pappaya Street, Seetarampuram, Vijayawada-...Complainant.

520002.

A N D

Paruchuri Murali Krishna, S/o Nagamalleswar Rao, Hindu, aged 48 years, Business, R/o D.No.9-307, 9th ward,

Nagayalanka, Main Road, Avanigadda, Krishna District....Accused.

This case is coming on 03/02/2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sri Ram, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri Y. Kumar Raja, Advocate

for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short “N.I. Act”) against the sole accused.

2.Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant on 08/09/2022 for his business necessities. On the same day, he executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per anum. On a demand made by the complainant to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 01/08/2023bearing No.810042 of State

Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Vijayawada, for Rs.9,50,000/- in favour of the complainant towards part satisfaction of the promissory note debt amount. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 01/08/2023 with his banker

CC.6/2025 2 VI ACJM,

Dt.6-02-2026 VJA. HDFC Bank Main Branch, MG Road, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. But surprisingly the said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with an endorsement “Funds

Insufficient” along with a memo issued on 03/08/2023. The complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and got issued a legal notice dated 11/08/2023 to the accused intimating him about the dishonour of the said cheque and also demanding him to pay the dishonored cheque amount of Rs.9,50,000/- within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice and the same was received by the accused but he kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.

3.After satisfying that there are grounds to proceed with, on 19/09/2023 the case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I.

Act and issued summons for appearance of the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. on 11/04/2025, accusation against the accused was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.

6.On closure of complainant side evidence, this court examined the accused under Sec 313 Cr.PC on 21/01/2026. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque from the account maintained by him towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.

2. Whether PW1 presented Ex.P2 cheque within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

3. Whether the complainant made a demand for payment of the said amount covered under Ex.P2 by giving a notice in writing to the accused within 30

CC.6/2025 3 VI ACJM,

Dt.6-02-2026 VJA. days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

4. Whether the accused having received the legal notice failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice.

5. To what relief.

8.POINT NO.1:

Complainant/PW1 deposed that accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- from him by executing Ex.P1 promissory note on 08/09/2022 with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. In order to establish the same, promissory note is marked as Ex.P1. The evidence of PW1 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P1.

9.Learned counsel for the accused contended that originally the accused borrowed amount from the sister of complainant by giving blank promissory note and cheque towards security, and later though he repaid the amount she did not return his blank documents, and the complainant by fabricating those blank documents falsely foisted the present case against accused.

10. As seen from cross examination of PW1 though PW1 stated that his mobile number is linked to the account of his sister and the accused transferred an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- to the said Phonepe number on different dates, he clarified that he is no way concerned with those transactions and the same does not relate to the present case. Therefore it is for the accused to prove that said transaction relates to the present transaction and he gave blank documents in the said transaction. In order to establish the same the accused did not adduce any evidence on his behalf and could not elicit anything from the cross examination of PW1 in his favour.

Therefore, this court is of the view that Ex.P2 was issued by the accused drawn from his account towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against accused.

11.Point Nos: 2 to 4:

Ex.P2 cheque is dated 01/08/2023 and the same is dishonoured vide Ex.P3

CC.6/2025 4 VI ACJM,

Dt.6-02-2026 VJA. cheque return memo dated 03/08/2023 with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

Ex.P3 cheque return memo established the said fact. Hence, Ex.P2 cheque was presented within the period of its validity and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

12.PW1 deposed that Ex.P4 legal notice was issued on 11/08/2023 after dishonour of Ex.P2. As seen from Ex.P4 it is clear that PW1 demanded the accused within thirty days after receipt of information from the bank regarding return of cheque under Ex.P3 for payment of due amount covered under Ex.P2. Hence, there is a valid notice.

13.The accused did not file any document to establish the alleged defence.

Hence, the evidence elicited during the cross examination of PW1 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the points are answered in favour of the complainant and against accused.

14.POINT NO.5:

The evidence of PW1 and contents of Exs.P1 to P5 established that there is legally enforceable debt and Ex.P2 was issued by the accused drawn from his account towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the said cheque was dishonoured as “Funds Insufficient”. The evidence of PW1 and Exs.P4 and P5 established that there is a legally valid notice to the accused. Hence, the evidence of

PW1 is consistent with the contents of Exs.P1 to P5 and complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.138 of N.I.Act.

15.In the result, I find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act and accused is convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

CC.6/2025 5 VI ACJM,

Dt.6-02-2026 VJA.

16.When the accused was questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he is suffering from ill health, he is a small vegetable vendor and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

17.Since the offence under section 138 N.I.Act is white collar offence, taking a lenient view would send a wrong signal to the society at large. Hence,this court is not inclined to take a lenient view and the accused is also not entitled to benefit under the provisions of P.O. Act.

18.The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months (6 months) and shall also pay a fine of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only), in default, accused shall under go SI for a period of 45 days for the offence punishable under sec.138 of N.I. Act.

19.The entire fine amount of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifty

Thousand Only), shall be paid as compensation to the complainant i.e., PW1 under 357 of Cr.PC. Remand period of accused is nil.

20. The accused is informed about his right of preferring an appeal against this judgment and further, when informed about his right to free legal aid, the accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer an appeal.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

CC.6/2025 6 VI ACJM,

Dt.6-02-2026 VJA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant For Accused

PW1 : Bommareddy Amarnadh Reddy - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.No.DateDescription of Document

Ex.P108-09-2022 Original Promissory note executed by the accused.

Ex.P201-08-2023 Original cheque bearing No.810042, SBI, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Vijayawada.

Ex.P303-08-2023 Cheque return memo from the complainant banker.

Ex.P411-08-2023 Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.P512-08-2023 Acknowledgment.

For Accused: - Nil -

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI ACJM, VJA.

CC.85/2025 1 VI ACJM,

Dt.30-01-2026. VJA.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, the 30th day of January, 2026.

CC.No.85 of 2025 .

Between:

Menda Devananda Kumar, S/o Hyzukiah, aged 48 years, Employee, C/o.B.Kameshwar, R/o H.No.48-7-27/1, ESI

Hospital Road, Near ESI Bus Stop, Gunadala, Vijayawada....Complainant.

A N D

Venna Srinivasu S/o.Bhaskara Rao, aged 53 years, C/o.M.Venkata Narasimha Rao, R/o D.No.4-27, Near Vuswabharathi convent Mandavalli Post & Mandal, Eluru

District-521345....Accused.

This case is coming on 30/01/2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Talari Guru Vara Prasad, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri V.N.Chakrapani, Advocate for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short “N.I.Act”) against the sole accused.

2.Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant on 15/07/2022 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per anum. On repeated demands made by the complainant to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 10/01/2024 bearing No.327759 of State Bank of

India, Kaikaluru Branch, for Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the promissory note debt amount. The complainant presented the

CC.85/2025 2 VI ACJM,

Dt.30-01-2026. VJA.

said cheque on 31/01/2024 for collection with his banker i.e., State Bank of India,

Machavaram Branch, Vijayawada. But surprisingly, the said cheque was returned dishonoured as unpaid along with cheque return memo dated 31/01/2024 for the reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. The complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and got issued a legal notice dated 05/02/2024 through his counsel to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On 14/02/2024 accused received the said notice, but did not choose to pay the cheque amount or to give reply.

Hence, the complaint.

3.The complainant filed his sworn affidavit in lieu of his sworn statement and after perusal of the contents of the complaint and other material on record, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments

Act was taken against the accused on 01/04/2024 by the learned I Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, and numbered as C.C.No.1479/2024 and issued summons for

appearance of the accused. Then this complaint was transferred to this Court as per orders of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam vide

Dis.No.11049 dated 06/12/2024 and renumbered as CC. No.85/2025.

4.On appearance of accused, he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. on 19/06/2025, accusation against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

6.While the matter was coming up for cross examination of PW1 on 08/09/2025 the complainant and accused were present and they submitted that they are intending to settle the matter before the mediator amicably and requested to refer the matter for mediation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to mediation center for settlement.

7.The Coordinator, Mediation center sent memorandum of reconciliation

CC.85/2025 3 VI ACJM,

Dt.30-01-2026. VJA.

under Section 89 CPC r/w Rule 32 of Alternative Disputes Resolution and

Mediation Rules, 2017 vide Dis.No.115, dated 24/01/2026. As per the said

Memorandum of reconciliation out of Rs.6,50,000/- a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by accused to the complainant on 10/11/2025 and 12/12/2025 and remaining balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- paid by the accused to the complainant on 22/01/2026.

The accused paid total amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and the same was received by complainant from the accused and there are no counter claims against each other towards full and final settlement in C.C.No.85 of 2025 VI Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Vijayawada, and the same was received by the complainant. It is

further agreed to not press the suit proceedings in O.S.No.902/2025 on the file of the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and C.C.No.86/2025 on the file of the court of VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada on or before 22/01/2026. It is also agreed that there are no other money transactions between the complainant and accused.

8.The complainant and accused appeared before this Court on 30/01/2026 and they submitted that they have resolved their dispute in the presence of mediator, as per the terms and conditions mentioned by the mediator in the memorandum of reconciliation.

9.The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, which is compoundable nature as provided under Section 147 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the memorandum of reconciliation recorded by the learned mediator the dispute is resolved between the complainant and accused as the accused paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement. So, the memorandum of reconciliation between the complainant and accused is recorded.

10.In view of the settlement of the matter in the mediation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of reconciliation, this Court is of the view that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.In the result, the accused is acquitted u/S.147 of NI Act for the offence

CC.85/2025 4 VI ACJM,

Dt.30-01-2026. VJA.

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as the matter is settled in the mediation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of reconciliation.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of January, 2026.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:- FOR ACCUSED/DEFENCE:-

PW1 :- Menda Devananda Kumar - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:-

COMPLAINANT:-

Ex.No.DateDescription of Document

Ex.P115-07-2022 Certified copy of promissory note executed by accused in favour of PW1 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.P210-01-2024 Cheque bearing No.327759, for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kaikalur.

Ex.P331-01-2024 Cheque return memo.

Ex.P405-02-2024 Office copy of the notice.

Ex.P514-02-2024 Returned unserved notice.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

Enclosure: Memorandum of Reconciliation with covering letter.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

CC.65/2025 1 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 5th day of February, 2026.

CC.No.65 of 2025 .

Between:

Nelakuditi Sankara Rao, S/o Nelakuditi Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 53 years, Business, R/o Flat No.202, Sun Orchid

Apartment, Loyola Gardens Road No.3, Gunadala,...Complainant.

Vijayawada-8.

A N D

Kothapalli Rama Krishna, S/o (Late) Radha Krishna, Hindu, aged 60 years, Business, R/o Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Sai Sahasra Estates, Tendsent Meadows, Devi Nagar,

Vijayawada-11....Accused.

This case is coming on 05/02/2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Giridhar, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri K.Sanjeev, Advocate for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short “N.I.Act”) against the sole accused.

2.Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 31/10/2021 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per anum. On repeated demands made by the complainant to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 01/12/2023 bearing No.000004 of Bank of

Baroda, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada-2, for Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the promissory note debt amount. The

CC.65/2025 2 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

complainant presented the said cheque for collection with his banker i.e., HDFC

Bank Ltd., Veterinary Colony Branch, Tikkle Road, Vijayawada. But surprisingly, the said cheque was returned dishonoured as unpaid along with cheque return memo dated 02/12/2023 for the reason “Refer to Drawer”. The complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and got issued a legal notice dated 13/12/2023 through his counsel to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On 14/12/2023 accused received the said notice and kept quite. Hence, the complaint.

3.The complainant filed his sworn affidavit in lieu of his sworn statement and after perusal of the contents of the complaint and other material on record, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments

Act was taken against the accused on 02/01/2024 by the learned I Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, and numbered as C.C.No.53/2024 and issued summons for

appearance of the accused. Then this complaint was transferred to this Court as per orders of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam vide

Dis.No.11049 dated 06/12/2024 and renumbered as CC.No.65/2025.

4.On appearance of accused, he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. on 07/07/2025, accusation against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

6.While the matter was coming up for cross examination of PW1 on 22/09/2025 the complainant and accused were present and they submitted that they are intending to settle the matter before the mediator amicably and requested

CC.65/2025 3 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

to refer the matter for mediation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to mediation center for settlement.

7.The Coordinator, Mediation center sent memorandum of reconciliation under Section 89 CPC r/w Rule 32 of Alternative Disputes Resolution and

Mediation Rules, 2017 vide Dis.No.133, dated 31/01/2026. As per the said

Memorandum of reconciliation the accused paid total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 28/01/2026 to the complainant towards full and final settlement of this case and the same was received by the complainant. It is also agreed that there are no other money transactions between the complainant and accused.

8.The complainant and accused appeared before this Court on 05/02/2026 and they submitted that they have resolved their dispute in the presence of mediator, as per the terms and conditions mentioned by the mediator in the memorandum of reconciliation.

9.The offence alleged against the accused is Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, which is compoundable nature as provided under

Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the memorandum of reconciliation recorded by the learned mediator the dispute is resolved between the complainant and accused as the accused paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement. So, the memorandum of reconciliation between the complainant and accused is recorded.

10.In view of the settlement of the matter in the mediation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of reconciliation, this Court is of the view that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.In the result, the accused is acquitted U/s.147 of NI Act for the offence

Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as the matter is settled in the

CC.65/2025 4 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

mediation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of reconciliation.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- M. Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:- FOR ACCUSED/DEFENCE:-

PW1 :- Nelakuditi Sankara Rao - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:-

COMPLAINANT:-

Ex.No.DateDescription of Document

Ex.P131-10-2021 Original Promissory note executed by the accused in favour of PW1.

Ex.P201-12-2023 Cheque bearing No.000004, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada.

Ex.P302-12-2023 Cheque return memo.

Ex.P413-12-2023 Office copy of statutory legal notice.

Ex.P513-12-2023 Postal receipt for Ex.P4.

Ex.P6--Net down loaded printout copy of postal track consignment of Ex.P4 sent to the accused.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

Enclosure: Memorandum of Reconciliation with covering letter.

Sd/- M. Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

CC.65/2025 5 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

CC.229/2025 1 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 5th day of February, 2026.

CC.No.229 of 2025 .

Between:

M/S.Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its GPA Holder cum Branch Collection Manager Beeram Gangadharam, S/o.Sadananda Rao, aged 38 years, Vijayawada Branch, office situated at 4th floor, Shanti Plaza, D.No.59-14-2A, Gayatri Nagar, Benz Circle,

Vijayawada....Complainant.

A N D

Shaik Karimulla, R/o D.No.1-4/5-39, Rama Mandiram

Street, Vidhyadhara Puram, Vijayawada, AP-520012....Accused.

This case is coming on 05/02/2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.K.N.Sai Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri Sk.Ali, Advocate for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under sec.138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short “N.I.Act”) against the sole accused.

2.The Complainant company by name M/s Cholamandalam Investment &

Finance Co. Ltd., rep.,by its GPA Holder cum Branch Collection Manager Beeram

Gangadharam, filed a private complaint against accused alleging that accused approached the complainant company and accused has availed a housing loan for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and executed necessary documents in favour of complainant under loan number XOHLVJI00001744048 by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of property. Accused failed to pay the

CC.229/2025 2 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

installments regularly. On several demands made by the complainant to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 26/09/2023 bearing No.039806 of Central Bank of India, Mango Market, Vijayawada, for Rs.13,42,885/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection with his banker i.e., HDFC Bank, Tikkle Road Branch, Vijayawada. But surprisingly, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement as per the return memo dt.27/09/2023 for the reason “01-Funds Insufficient”. The complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and got issued a legal notice

dated 04/10/2023 to the accused and the same was acknowledged on

05/10/2023. Hence, the complaint.

3.The complainant filed his sworn affidavit in lieu of his sworn statement and after perusal of the contents of the complaint and other material on record, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments

Act was taken against the accused on 18/11/2023 by the learned I Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, and numbered as C.C.No.6051/2023 and issued summons for

appearance of the accused. Then this complaint was transferred to this Court as per orders of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam vide

Dis.No.11049 dated 06/12/2024 and renumbered as CC. No.229/2025.

4.While the matter was coming up for trial on 07/07/2025 the complainant and accused were present and they submitted that they are intending to settle the matter before the mediator amicably and requested to refer the matter for mediation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to mediation center for settlement.

5.The Coordinator, Mediation center sent memorandum of reconciliation

Under Section 89 CPC r/w Rule 32 of Alternative Disputes Resolution and

Mediation Rules, 2017 vide Dis.No.132, dated 31/01/2026. As per the said

Memorandum of reconciliation the accused paid total amount of Rs.1,30,000/-.

The complainant received above said amount and he agreed to withdraw the

CC.229/2025 3 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

above case towards full and final settlement of this case. It is also agreed that there are no other money transactions between the complainant and accused.

6. The complainant and accused appeared before this Court on 05/02/2026 and they submitted that they have resolved their dispute in the presence of mediator, as per the terms and conditions mentioned by the mediator in the memorandum of reconciliation.

7.The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, which is compoundable nature as provided under Section 147 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the memorandum of reconciliation recorded by the learned mediator the dispute is resolved between the complainant and accused as the accused paid Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement and the complainant agreed to return the title documents to accused by canceling the mortgage deed. So, the memorandum of reconciliation between the complainant and accused is recorded.

8.In view of the settlement of the matter in the mediation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of reconciliation, this Court is of the view that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. In the result, the accused is acquitted U/s.147 of NI Act for the offence

Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as the matter is settled in the mediation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of reconciliation.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

CC.229/2025 4 VI ACJM,

Dt.05-02-2026. VJA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- Nil -

Enclosure: Memorandum of Reconciliation with covering letter.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari,

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.