Delhi District Court
Krishan Pal vs . Manoj Kumar on 30 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 : NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
Krishan Pal Vs. Manoj Kumar
PS Keshav Puram/Budh Vihar
U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
Date of Institution : 28.11.2014
Date of Judgment : 30.06.2022
JUDGMENT
(1) Serial number of the case : 13611/2016
(2) Name of the complainant : Sh. Krishan Pal, 38 Yrs
Prop. Of:M/S. Shri Krishna
Transportation & Financial
Services Having Office At 320,
Gali No.17, V.P.O. Rithala, Delhi
(3) Name of the accused : Manoj Kumar
S/O Sh, Ram Dhani
R/O A28, BlockA,
Yadav Nagar (Samaypur)
Delhi
Also At
Office: Cw224, 2nd Floor
Sanjay Gandhi Trpt. Nagar,Delhi
(4) Offence complained of/proved: U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881
(5) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(6) Final Order : Acquittal
(7) Reserved for judgment on : 30.06.2022
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
CHAURASIA
VAIBHAV
CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30
17:59:18
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that the complainant is into transport business and accused is having business relations with the complainant and having visiting terms with each other and the complainant has given his vehicles on lease basis to the accused as per his requirements; that the accused had approached complainant in the month of June 2012 and requested complainant for a friendly loan as the accused was facing financial problems ;that on 260612 complainant gave the loan as desired by the accused for a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ and the accused assured the complainant to repay the friendly loan within a period of 3 months and accused also executed a promissory note to that effect; that in the month of Sept, 2012 accused requested for a time of about 20 months to repay the said loan; That on 25.09.2012 the accused in discharge of his legal liability for payment of the said loan amount, issued a cheque bearing no. 844579 date 25.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on State Bank of India branch, Samaypur, Delhi; that the complainant presented the cheque which was returned dishonored with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 16.06.2014; That the fate of cheque was intimated to the accused and under compelling circumstances the complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.06.2014 to the accused, which accused intentionally refused on 18.06.2014 and despite the legal notice, the accused did not make the payment of the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30 17:59:39 +0530 cheque. Hence, the present complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the Act").
2. The complainant led presummoning evidence by way of affidavit (Ex CW1/A) and relied upon documents i.e.,cheque bearing no. 844579 dated 25.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on State Bank of India branch, Samaypur, Delhi (Ex.CW1/1); the bank return memo dated 16.06.2014 (Ex CW1/2); legal notice dated 17.06.2014 (Ex CW1/3), postal receipts (Ex CW1/4 and Ex CW1/5 ), Courier receipts (Ex.CW1/6 and Ex CW1/7), Speed post envelopes ( Ex CW1/8 and Ex CW1/9) which were duly considered by the Ld Predecessor Judge and the accused was summoned vide order dated 04.04.2015 for offence u/s. 138 NI Act.
3. After the accused entered appearance, he was admitted to bail and notice was framed against him on 26.04.2016 by the Ld Predecessor Judge wherein the accused stated his defence which is reproduced herein "The cheque in question bears my signature only and apart from that no entry was filled by me. The cheque in question is one of the cheques which were obtained by the complainant as security while financing three commercial vehicle to me. The cheque was obtained by the complainant in the year 2011 and the cheque of the subsequent number of the same series has been cleared way back (much prior). Digitally signed by VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30
18:00:02 +0530
The complainant has misused the cheque in his favour by twisting the facts and just to extort money from me. I have never been served with the legal notice and I only received the summons from this Hon'ble Court pursuant to the present case. I do not owe any liability towards the complainant. I have not taken any loan from the complainant as alleged by him."
4. After the application of the accused under Section 145 (2) NI Act was allowed by the Ld Predecessor vide order dated 26.04.2016, the accused was permitted to crossexamine the complainant.
5. During his evidence, the complainant was duly cross examined by the Counsel for accused in which he stated he is an undergraduate and deposed again that he is 11th pass. He is into business of transport and doing the said work for 1012 years. He do not deal in providing finance. He do not know as to how many vehicles are owned by him. He cannot tell whether he owned 204060 number of vehicles. He is not aware whether any license/registration is required to run the transport business. He did not take any surety /security for the purpose of leasing out the vehicle. Sometimes he take guarantee for the purpose of leasing out of vehicle. There is no certain period for leasing out the vehicle and he use to lease out the vehicle as per the demand of lessee. Whenever he gave the vehicle on lease, he entered into a lease agreement (in writing) with the lessee. He had given two vehicles to accused on lease and the number of the vehicles are HR55M6338 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:00:29 +0530 and HR55L 0551. The vehicle bearing registration No. HR55M 6338 was given to the accused in the year 2011 and the HR55L 0551 was given in the year 2013. The vehicle HR55M 6338 Mini Truck of make TATA 1109 was given on lease to the accused for a period of four years. He did not remember the model of HR55M 6338. He did not remember as to for what period the second vehicle HR55L 0551 was given to the accused on lease. He had entered into an agreement with the accused qua the vehicle bearing No. HR55M 6338. As per the agreement qua the vehicle No. HR55M 6338, the four years period was already been over. Though he did not remember the number of his customers but they may be 1520 in numbers. He did not remember whether the agreement with these 1520 customers is alive or not. He did not remember that as to how many cases he have filed against his customers. He was not aware whether these cases which are pending are in number as one or five or 10 or more than that.He admitted that two case are pending against him and both are of criminal nature. He denied to suggestion that he is a financer. He had filed five cases against the present accused and all are pending. He had given financial loan to four more persons other than the present accused. He cannot disclose this fact here in this case that as to whether he had taken any cheque from the above said four persons in lieu of the loan amount given to them because those facts are not disclosable. He is not an income tax assessee. He did not remember as to what is his turn over. He even Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30 18:00:49 +0530 cannot anticipate whether his turn over is of 1 lakh or 5 lakhs or 10 lakhs per year. He had taken loan from various banks and other financial institutions against vehicles. He had given three similar friendly loan to the different friends. Accused herein was also one of his friend. The accused is still his friend and there is no difference of opinion with him except the recovery of money. If any person or friend does not return the loan, at a promised time in such circumstances, he did not have any faith in him. He had never visited the house of the accused and the accused also did never visited at his house. Witness further volunteered that he had been visiting the office of the accused and vice versa accused also had been visiting his office. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs was with his wife and was available as extra money. Witness was posed question as "For how much time, the money was available as extra money with his wife? And witness answered "It was kept in her bank account for the marriage of his daughter." The amount involved in the present case was initially given to the accused for three months and without any interest thereof. He did not press for a cheque for security against the amount disbursed to the accused in June 2012 as they were good friends and he deemed it not fit to have any security instrument against the friendly loan. When the accused further asked for the extension of the repayment time of 20 months, then he asked him for some collateral security and then he himself tendered this cheque to him. Witness further volunteered that "He said Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30 18:01:26 +0530 that the calculation of the interest would be later on. The interest was agreed to be paid by the accused on this amount @ 24 % per annum." Witness did not know exactly as how much the accused is studied upto but to his knowledge he is capable to sign in Hindi. He would have been satisfied if the cheque would have been encashed on its date and further he would have asked for the interest accrued there. He admitted that the notice pursuant to the present case was issued by his Counsel under his instruction. He admitted that he had narrated and explained each and every aspect qua the monetary dealing in question. No fact pursuant to the case was left to be mentioned in the notice and every thing was properly included and narrated in the legal notice. He had explained to his Counsel while issuing the legal notice about the interest part of the amount in question. After going through the legal notice on record, the witness replied that it is correct that no interest was asked in the notice upon the amount in question, however, the word "interest agreed" has come in para no.3 of his notice. Witness denied that there was no occasion to ask this principal amount so question of interest does not arise at all. He further denied that he have not asked or specifically mentioned the rate of interest because the accused was not in debt of any kind of amount. The accused had brought the cheque in question in my office at Rithala. He did not remember as to whether the accused was alone or was in company with some other else at that time. The accused did not bring Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:01:57 +0530 the cheque book in my office and he had only brought the single cheque in question. The accused had brought a blank cheque in his office and handed over to him for filling the entries therein. I had filled the entries viz. Name of the bearer, amount in words and in numerical and the date also. The accused had merely signed the cheque above his name. Witness was posed with suggestion "I suggest to you that accused had given you two cheques bearing no. 844579 and 844580 on your asking as a security of the finance which he had availed from you against commercial vehicle bearing no. HR 55M 6338." to which he answered that "It is wrong. He have not received any cheque from this accused as security of the vehicle financed / leased by him .He denied that the abovesaid two cheques were given to him in May 2011. The accused had not asked any further time after the due date of the cheque in question for the encashment of the same and accused had himself asked him to present the cheque for encashment on the date as mentioned in the cheque. He had not filed any complaint. He admitted that there was a complaint made by the accused against him in the police, however, he did not know where such complaint was lodged. He even did not know on what account accused has made the complaint against him. He came to know about this complaint on the receiving of a telephone from one police official from some police station. He did not remember who the policeman was and where he was posted at that time. The police official told him that Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:02:09 +0530 he had abused someone and on account of that a police complaint was lodged with him. However, he never visited the police station in regard to that complaint. He did not remember whether he had apologized to the accused about the abusing as narrated herein above. He did not remember the date, month and year as to when this complaint was made by the accused against him. He denied that he had tendered his apology to the accused and his son regarding the abovesaid complaint. He further deposed that he cannot admit or deny whether the complaint was made on 12.06.2014. Even, he can not admit or deny that complaint was lodged in the PS SamayPur Badli. He could not even further admit or deny whether this complaint was for asking money from accused and threatening and abusing to them on account of the same. He had not placed on record any promissory note qua the present case but the same is filed in another case pending between him and the accused. He have not even placed the copy of the same in this case. He further volunteered that he can produce the copy of the same which he have brought. However, he have not brought any attested copy of the same. He denied that no such promissory note was ever executed by the accused in his favour and the same was got signed by him in the process of financing the vehicle as mentioned in detailed hereinabove. He further denied to have manipulated the cheque in question in his favour. He further denied that he did so as a counter blast of the complaint dated 12.06.2014 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:02:24 +0530 made by the accused and his son against him. He further deposed that he cannot answer to the question that as to why he have not presented the cheque in question on the due date or the next or within next one or two days with my banker for its encashment. He further denied that the accused was never in debt of the amount which he have alleged in the present or that he had never taken any friendly loan from him. He further denied that even he did not have any such intention to file any case against him unless he and his son have made a complaint against him on 12.06.2014. He further denied that the cheque in question was manipulated with its entries only after the police complaint of 12.06.2014 or that's why he had filled the entries and presented the same on 15.06.2014 with his banker. He may have sent the legal notice on the very next day of the date of bounce of the instrument. He further denied that because he was in haste to take revenge from the accused on account of the complaint made by them against me and that's why he proceeded against them in such manner. He further denied that the legal notice relied upon the present case was never sent to address of the accused or that the report thereupon was manipulated. He can not admit or deny whether the other notices or Court notices were duly served or received by the accused in other cases. He further denied that he had concocted the present story to pressurize the accused and filed a false case against him with this purpose only. He further denied that he had never given Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:02:37 +0530 any loan to the accused and he had never asked for any loan from me of any kind whatsoever. Witness further deposed that he is not deposing falsely.
6. The statement of accused was thereafter recorded under Sec 313 CrPC on 31.01.2017 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he reiterated his defence. He stated that he had not taken any loan. The complainant is a financer from whom he had purchased Eicher 1110 Tempo and in respect of the same he had given the cheque in question as security towards the financed vehicle. The complainant had a verbal quarrel with his son and due to the same the complainant presented the same
7. The accused however chose to lead evidence in his defence and have examined four witnesses.
8. Accused has examined DW1 as Sh. Sunil Kumar, Trainee Officer, SBI, Samaipur wherein he had brought the summoned record which were firstly, record of the issuance of different cheque books from the account of Mr. Manoj Kumar (accused) from his account no. 10704937303. The same was exhibited as Ex.DW1/1 and secondly, statement of account of Mr. Manoj Kumar (accused) number 10704937303 commencing from 01.04.2010 to 31.05.2014 and same was exhibited as Ex.DW1/2 (page no. 1 to 31). Opportunity was given to crossexamine however no crossexamination was availed of. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
VAIBHAV CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:02:50 +0530
9. Accused has examined DW2 as HC Dipender, No. 242/OND, PS Samaypur Badli, wherein he has brought the record i.e. DD no. 18A dated 12.06.2014, and the same was exhibited as Ex.DW2/A (OSR) and DD no. 101B dated 12.06.2014 which is Ex.DW2/B (OSR).
10. Accused has examined DW3 as himself wherein he deposed that the complainant is a financer. The complainant used to purchase vehicles in his own name and he further used to sell those vehicles on finance basis to the customers. Through this process while financing these vehicles, he adds his profit and interest in the cost of the vehicles and sells it further by fixing the equal installment to be paid by his customers in 34 years period. While financing the vehicle, the complainant had taken 2 blank signed cheques, he had taken his signatures on certain papers of which few were blank, few were printed and on few the ticket of Rs. 1 was pasted. He had taken the vehicle from the complainant in 2011 and in the year 2014 the complainant had some talks with his son regarding insurance but the complainant started abusing his son (Bhaddi Bhaddi Galiyan Dene Lage) and also threatened to kill his son. He also said that he will not give form no. 2930 as well as form no. 35. His son told the complainant to take his dues but to leave him but the complainant asked for additional Rs. 1,25,000/ for issuance of form no. 35. They refused to give the sum of Rs. 1.25,000/ and asked the complainant to Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:03:04 +0530 take his dues. His son then lodged a complaint with PS Samaypur Badli against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant presented his blank cheque and also instituted 34 cases against him. He had not taken any money from the complainant. DW3 was duly cross examined wherein he denied that the vehicles were not financed to him or that the same was given on lease by the complainant. He further denied that the documents on which his signatures were taken were in respect of the vehicles given on lease. He cannot say whether on the documents it was written as lease deed as he is not that literate in English. He denied that the vehicles were required to be returned after the period of lease. To the suggestion that in one of the cases out of the 34 cases mentioned by him, he had made the payment in the Court of Ms. Kiran Gupta, Ld. ADJ, Room no. 301, Rohini Courts to which he admitted to be correct. He denied that the present case is in respect of the pronote or that the complainant had given any money to him. He denied that the present case does not pertain to any vehicle transaction and volunteered that the cheque was given as security against the financed vehicle. He could not tell exactly which were got signed by him. He did not make any complaint in respect of his signatures having been obtained on the blank paper, nor he sent any legal notice as since 2014 they had no quarrel with the complainant. He denied that the vehicles were not financed to him or that the same was given on lease by the complainant. He denied that the documents Digitally signed by VAIBHAV CHAURASIA VAIBHAV Date: CHAURASIA 2022.06.30 18:03:19 +0530 on which his signatures were taken were in respect of the vehicles given on lease. He cannot say whether on the documents it was written as lease deed as he is not that literate in English. He denied that the vehicles were required to be returned after the period of lease. Witness was shown photocopy of pronote and after seeing the same, witness had admitted his signatures at point A and B. The document was exhibited as Ex.DW3/C1. He did not asked for the return of the cheques given to the complainant as the quarrel took place even before the same (Usse Pehle Jhagda Ho Gaya). He denied to have been deposing falsely or that the payment of Rs. 5 lakh is a genuine payment or that the same was given against pronote.
11. Accused has examined DW4 as Sh. Ghan Shyam wherein he deposed that he is illiterate but he can sign in Hindi language. He is aware about the case in hand which had been filed Krishan Pal against one Manoj Kumar. Krishan Pal (complainant) is a financier. Complainant used to finance commercial vehicles to his different customers. The complainant used to get financed the vehicle from bank and further sales to the different customers. While selling / financing such vehicles complainant used to add money of his profit and takes blank signed cheques from the customer as Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:03:32 +0530 security while financing the vehicle. Complainant used to take signatures on certain papers viz printed, half printed and certain other papers in the form of a file. He have also got financed two vehicles from the complainant and he is also victim of the false cases filed against him by the complainant Krishan Pal by misusing my documents against him. Five similar false cases under Section 138 N.I Act have been filed by the complainant against him and the same are pending before this Hon'ble Court and false arbitration cases also filed by the complainant against him and certain cases on the basis of false pronote also being filed by the complainant against him. The complainant is in the habit of filing false cases against his customer by way of converting and misusing such documents as he have told herein above in his favour. He was duly cross examined wherein he deposed that Krishan Pal has filed another similar false cases against one Manoj Kumar Singh, Sandeep Yadav, Anil and some other person whose name he did not remember at this time. They knew each other because they all have got financed commercial vehicles from the complainant. He denied that they are in collusion to give evidence in each other cases. He voluntereed that he is appearing before this Hon'ble Court to speak the truth. He did not know about the difference of lease and finance as he is illiterate. He had been given the vehicle on finance by the complainant. He denied that the complainant used to give the vehicles to his customers on lease basis not on finance. He admitted that he is Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30 18:03:45 +0530 not a summoned witness and he is deposing at the instance of Manoj Kumar. He denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar as well as Counsel for accused. He deposed that he is deposing truth on his own without any pressure or coercion. He denied that he is also not regular in paying the instalments to the complainant against his vehicles so he came here to depose in favour of the accused or that accused will cooperate in a similar manner in his cases.
12. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Piyush Mittal, Ld counsel for the complainant and by Sh. Anil Pawar, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been carefully considered alongwith the entire evidence on record. Written arguments were also filed.
13. To prove an offence under Section 138 NI Act, it is required to be proved that:
(i) The accused issued a cheque on an account maintained by him/her with a bank for payment of money to another from out of that account;
(ii) That cheque has been issued for the discharge (either in whole or in part) of any debt or other liability;
(iii)That 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;Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
VAIBHAV Date: CHAURASIA 2022.06.30 18:03:58 +0530
(iv) That cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(v) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 30 days of the receipt of information by him/her from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(vi) The drawer of such cheque failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
14. In the case at hand, the accused has not disputed that the cheque in question has been issued on an account maintained by him with a bank and hence the ingredient (i) is deemed to proved as not disputed.
15. In respect of ingredient (iii) and (iv), the complainant has testified that the cheque in question ie Ex CW1/1 dated 25.05.2014 was returned dishonoured on 16.06.2014. During his crossexamination, no questions were put to the complainant nor any suggestions were given to him as to the cheque not having been presented to the bank within the period of its validity. Hence the ingredient (iii) i.e. the factum of Digitally signed by VAIBHAV CHAURASIA VAIBHAV Date: CHAURASIA 2022.06.30 18:04:11 +0530 the cheque in question having been presented during the period of its validity is deemed to be proved as not disputed.
16. Further, with the factum of dishonour of the cheque in question being not disputed by the accused and rather as having been admitted by her in her statement under Sec 313 CrPC, the ingredient (iv) is also deemed to be admitted as not disputed.
17. In respect of the legal notice, as CW1, the complainant has testified that upon dishonour of cheque in question, he sent notice dated 17.06.2014 (Ex CW1/3) to the accused for return of the cheque amount vide speed post and courier on 17.06.2014 ie within 30 days of dishonour of the cheque. The complainant also relied upon receipts (Ex CW1/4 and Ex CW1/5), Courier Receipts (Ex. CW1/6 and Ex. CW1/7) alongwith Speed Post envelopes (Ex CW1/7 and Ex CW1/8). The accused has however denied receipt of the notice of demand.
18. It is pertinent to note that Section 114 of Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to communications sent by post and it enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act envisages that when a registered notice is posted, it is presumed to have been served unless rebuttal is given.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:04:23 +0530
19. In the present case, it is not the case of the accused that the address on which the notice was sent is not her address, rather she has given the same address in the court when her statement under Section 281 r/w 313 CrPC was being recorded. Hence the notice was sent by the accused at her correct address. For reasons best known to her, the accused has not led any evidence in rebuttal to disprove the report given by the postal official either.
20. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that " Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court alongwith the copy of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s. 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30
18:04:37
+0530
21. Thus, keeping in view that except mere denial of receipt of notice of demand, no evidence in rebuttal has been led by the accused as also keeping in view the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, merely on the account of non service of legal notice dated 17.06.2014 (Ex. CW1/3) the present complaint cannot be rejected and the same is presumed to have been duly served upon the accused.
22. In respect of ingredient (vi), it is pertinent to note that admittedly the accused has not made any payment to the complainant in respect of the cheque in question till date. Hence even the ingredient (vi) stands proved.
DEBT/LIABILITY
23. It is a well settled position of law that once execution of the negotiable instrument is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) NI Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration. However, such presumption is rebuttable and the accused can prove the nonexistence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:04:52 +0530 burden upon the accused of proving the nonexistence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the accused is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the complainant as well. To disprove the presumption, the accused has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that it did not exist." (Reliance placed on Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1993) 3 SCC 35 ).
24. The NI Act also provides under Section 139 that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque 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. Thus, Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. It is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 , the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30 18:05:08 +0530 about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. (Reliance placed on Rangappa vs Sri Mohan, (Criminal Appeal no 1020 of 2010 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court).)
25. In the present case, from the evidence on record, the accused has been able to bring on record certain facts which make the case of the complainant improbable and further upon it is the clear that the complainant has misused the cheque and have laid false claim.
26. Ld. Counsel for the complainant have advanced the arguments that all the ingredients of NI Act are made out, that the documents are adequate to convict the accused, that there is admission by the accused that there were dealings, that the accused had not made complaint to the police regarding the misuse of the cheque, that the complaint made by the accused and his son as brought by DW 2 is false complaint, that the cheque book issued qua cheque bearing no. 844578620 was issued on 09.04.2010. Ld. Counsel of the complainant have laid emphasis that the cheque bearing no. and ending with 578 was issued on qua 30.04.2011 and last cheque ending with 599 was issued on Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:05:20 +0530 09.05.2011. Further, he submits that the present cheque was issued in September 2012 and the cheques ending with no. 580, 589, 596, 600, 601, 602 were never issued. He further submits that the several cheques have been issued which reveals falsity on the part of the accused. Further Ld. Counsel for the complainant have submitted that the defence taken at the time of framing of notice and defence taken u/s 313 is different. Ld. Counsel for the complainant have relied upon on following judgements which has been perused specifically and specifically the highlighted part. Ld Counsel of the complainant relies upon the judgments of Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11.07.2001 and in particular paragraph 19, 20, 21, 31, MMTC LTD. & Others Vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 234 and in particular paragraph 16, 17, K.N Beena Vs. V. Muniyappan and another AIR 2001 HC 2896, V.S Yadav Vs. Reena 172 (2010) DLT 561 and in particular paragraph 3, 4, 5, 7, Sanjay Gupta Vs. State passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.03.2022 and in particular paragraph 5, 8, 10.
27. Ld. Counsel for the accused have argued that in the present case no loan was advanced and the complainant has misused the cheque only to take revenge from the accused for the reason that in the year 2014, the son of the accused and the complainant had a quarrel with respect to the insurance and accused's son had asked the complainant to Digitally signed by VAIBHAV CHAURASIA VAIBHAV Date: CHAURASIA 2022.06.30 18:05:32 +0530 deliver Form 29 30 and Form 39. That the complainant illegally demanded money for handing over these aforesaid forms and upon this quarrel took place and complaint was lodged with PS Samay Pur Badli on 12.06.2012. That the complainant failed to extort illegal money from the accused and his son and further, the Ld. Counsel for the accused have laid emphasis that the stand of the accused have remained consistent in his deposition throughout and during the cross examination of the accused, and nothing adverse to the above deposition could be culled out.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
28. Firstly, it is apparent by the deposition of DW 1 that the several cheque booklets were issued by the Bank to the accused and in particular on 09.04.2010, 03.05.2010, 27.09.2011, 29.09.2011, 02.07.2012 (Two cheque booklets were also issued subsequent on 02.07.2012 i.e., on 08.05.2013 and 28.12.2016, but it is not relevant as cheque in present case were handed over on 25.09.2012). It is evident that the present cheque bearing no. 844579 is the second leaf of the cheque booklet issued on 09.04.2010 and subsequent thereto four other booklet have been issued i.e., on 03.05.2010, 27.09.2011, 29.09.2011 and 02.07.2012. Therefore, any person who is handing over the cheque on 25.09.2012 would give it from the booklet issued on 02.07.2012 and even if the imagination is to be stretched, it may be Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:05:46 +0530 from the booklet issued on 29.09.2011 at most but since four booklets were already exhausted, it is improbable that one who has already exhausted four booklets of cheque and have got issued fifth booklets of cheque in the time frame when the cheque is alleged to have been handed over to the complainant by the accused will keep second leaf of the booklet especially for the complainant which was issued by the bank qua booklet dated 09.04.2010. Further, during the cross examination of DW3 dated 17.12.2019 on page 2 of last two lines wherein, question has been put to him and it is reproduced as follows: "Q. I put it to you that you continued the use the cheque books pertaining to the cheque in question even after the issuance of this cheque?
Ans. It is correct,"
This court is of the opinion that the aforesaid deposition is not prejudicial to the extent as same booklet was used, as the cheque used in the present case is the second leaf of the booklet which was issued by the bank on 09.04.2010 and it is even the admission on the part of the complainant that the subsequent cheques of the booklet and in particular the last cheque of the booklet and ending with no. 844599 was issued on 09.05.2012.
29. Secondly, the deposition of DW 2 wherein witness has brought before the Court DD. NO. 18 A and DD. no. 101B both dated 12.06.2014 which is Ex. DW2/A (OSR) and Ex. DW2 /B (OSR) respectively Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:06:00 +0530 confirms the factum of quarrel and same also stands admitted by the complainant in his crossexamination that he had quarrel with the son of the accused. However, as to the other particulars, the complainant had given evasive replies. Perusal of Ex. DW2 /B also reveals that the financer have (complainant herein) admitted his fault and had apologised, however the same has been denied by the complainant to the effect that he do not remember. This confirms the factum of quarrel and verbal dispute with the son of accused.
30. Thirdly, as to the credibility of the witness i.e., complainant in the present case, as far as this case is concerned, it is clear that in view of the evidence placed by both the parties, it is pertinent to ponder upon that complainant speaks to have business relationship with the accused but had not visited the house of the accused. The complaint mentions that the accused was in financial crises but it is not mentioned or have been answered as to what was its nature. The alleged loan was advanced for three months and when it was not repaid, as per complainant in three months, then it was further advanced for twenty months. There has been several improvisation on the part of the complainant in his crossexamination. Further, the complainant is not even the income tax assessee, as mentioned in his cross examination but it it not clear that how he has taken loan from financial institution. The complainant do not know the number of vehicles he owns and have given an evasive reply. It is not clear that either he has the empire Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:06:12 +0530 of business of transport and judicial notice is taken of the fact that several cases of high amount and even in the present case of Rs. 5,00,000/ is being sought by the complainant and that also not being an income tax assessee and further, the complainant credibility qua his testimony stands shaken in view of evasive replies. Entire crossexamination of the complainant is rampant with phrases " does not know, do not remember." It is not at all intelligible that five cases are being prosecuted against the accused by the complainant and as per the version of the complainant, the accused is still his friend. In view of the testimony of the complainant who is unworthy of credit in this case qua his deposition in the present case, the issuance of several booklets of cheque already before the present cheque was handed over in the time frame as alleged by the complainant, the calculable time frame between the date on which quarrel took place and dishonourment of the cheque and is further firmly corroborated by the testimony of DW4, whose cross examination stood the test of rigour and nothing adverse could be brought out during crossexamination of DW4 and there is no reason to disbelieve DW4 in view of his unshaken testimony and prior evidence of DW1, DW2, DW3 confirms it beyond doubts and above evidence cannot be mere coincidence one or twice but nature does not play with natural course of events and the events in the present case are flowing naturally and what can be alleged as coincidence cannot be for numerous times, henceforth, there is no proof of the loan given, there is no reason for the loan forwarded, there is no detail about the financial crisis of the accused was going through, the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:06:24 +0530 complainant is not an income tax assessee, the complainant herein seeks Rs. 5,00,000/ as loan advanced, the deposition of the complainant is full of ' I do not know, I do not remember, I cannot admit or deny' , that his admission on the part of complainant that he has leased/ dealt with the accused qua two vehicles confirming the narrative of the defence of the accused that the cheque was handed over way back in year 2011 qua such vehicles to the complainant as security. It is also astonishing that the complainant admits to have taken loan from various banks and other financial institutions without being income tax assessee is a blatant lie. It is also weird that complainant has filed several cases against the accused but still claims to be friend of the accused. In his crossexamination the complainant submits that five lakhs qua alleged loan with his wife as extra money and the same was for the marriage of her daughter. It is not clear as to how such friendly loan was given in June, 2012 and also the mode of the advancement and the utter silence in the complaint. Further, the complainant is not an income tax assessee, therefore, he has not even paid the minimun tax amount or either he comes under the exempted bracket of income tax. It is also improbable that the loan is friendly to the extent when it was disbursed and the complainant have not taken any cheque as security and it is interesting that he has deposed in his crossexamination dated 29.08.2016 that "I cannot disclosed this fact herein this case as to whether I have taken any cheque from the above said four persons in the lieu of the loan amount given to them because those facts are not disc losable" therefore omitting his duty to speak as a truth Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:06:39 +0530 as witness and he has a change of heart only in three months, as per the version of the complainant when the accused failed to repay the alleged loan amount in three months and thereafter 20 months was granted to pay the alleged loan and that also at the rate of 24 % per annum (much higher than any friendship warrants, as even the commercial loan of the bank is at the much lower rate (though Banks indeed look into the propensity of repayment)). It is also interesting that the details qua interest rate gets omitted in the legal notice. It is the admission of the complainant in his cross examination dated 10.08.2018 and in particular page 2 paragraph 5 that accused has merely signed the cheque therefore blank cheque was handed over to the complainant and the first ingredients for the misuse of the cheque and its opportunity is available. Also the deposition of the complainant that he never took any cheque as security when two commercial vehicles was dealt by the accused is against the normal business practice and do not inspire confidence or common sense that any businessmen would lease out heavy vehicles without surety and security and his deposition on 29.08.2016 that he does not take any surety/ security for the purpose of releasing of vehicle is ruled out as against the common sense. Accused has made complaint against the complainant which is evident from deposition by the complainant on 10.08.2018 on page 3 and in particular paragraph 3, hence, the arguments by the Ld. Counsel of the complainant that no complaint was made by the accused is unsustainable in view of admission made by the complainant himself. It is also unfortunate that there is whole paragraph of Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:06:50 +0530 crossexamination of the complainant full of phrase I cannot admit or deny recalling the maxim "Things speaks for itself".
31. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the date upon the cheque is 25.05.2014. It is almost 34 years after the year the vehicles were leased to accused in the year 2011. This part of deposition of DW3 dated 17.12.2019 have not been rebutted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant in cross examination of DW3. Since this Court is of the firm opinion that not receiving any cheque with respect to the vehicle released upon lease is against the business practice that any businessmen or even a small trader would indulge in and further the undue haste shown in presenting the cheque just after the quarrel broke out between the complainant and the son of the accused i.e., on 12.06.2014. It is interesting to observe that if one looks at the calender of 2014 and that of the month June, the 12.06.2014 is Thursday and 13.06.2014 is Friday and the subsequent two days i.e., 14 June and 15 June is Second Saturday and Sunday on which the banks are closed and the complainant have presented the cheque on the very opening of the Bank. i.e., on Monday 16.06.2014. Perusal of the DD no. 18 A Ex. DW2/B reflects that the incident took place at 2:20 pm and Ex. DW2/B, the column in which DD. No. 18 A is placed, commences with 10:45 pm, henceforth, 13.06.2014 as Friday, cannot be ruled out as a date to think about and on the very next reopening of the bank, the cheque was presented. Despite the cheque being dated as 25.05.2014, the complainant have presented the cheque exactly after one working day i.e., Friday (13.06.2014) being working Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:07:06 +0530 day and then on Monday itself i.e., 16.06.2014 the cheque in question was presented speaks volume beyond doubt the design on the part of the complainant reconfirming the version of defense of the accused. As upon the evidence placed on record and the series of events that have unfolded, this Court is of the opinion that the truth of the matter is that no loan has been proved to have been lent as the complainant is not even the income tax assessee and cannot be presumed additionaly to have lent loan of such high amount( relative as complainant do not pay income tax hence his financial capacity is now under doubt) and there being no iota of proof qua loan and in view of aforesaid appreciation of evidence there is no probability that any loan was advanced. Further, the version of the accused that the cheque was handed over in the year 2011 stands confirm in view of deposition of DW2 and even the perusal of the cheque i.e., Ex. CW1/1 reveals that the cheque was printed on 10.04.2010 by Nutech Security Printers and in view of the evidences of quarrel with the accused and his son and further the DD entry and the unholy date of presentation of cheque which perfectly fits as per the narrative of the defence of the accused and further the testimony of the complainant being unworthy of credit in this case, this Court is of prima facie opinion beyond doubt that this case is being a false case. In view of deposition full of " I do not know, I do not remember, I cannot admit or deny, I cannot disclose" also points inference towards the false claim on the part of the complainant and firm desposition by DW1, DW2 and DW3, which read in conjunction strictly proves that the cheque was handed over in the year Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:07:19 +0530 2011 and admission on the part of the complainant regarding the dealing of the accused qua vehicles and subsequent booklet issued by the bank on the request of the accused proves and rules out that such cheques were handed over on 25.10.2012 when already four booklets have been exhausted and fifth booklet is in use, as issued by the bank on 02.07.2012. This Court has already stated this opinion that it is improbable that in the given time frame that accused will keep and would hand over the second leaf of the cheque from the booklet issued by the bank on 09.04.2010 when subsequent thereto, the bank has issued booklet on 03.05.2010, 27.09.2011, 19.09.2011 and 02.07.2012 confirms the defence of the accused and there is no reason to disbelief the testimony of DW4 qua modus operandi of the complainant which warrants prosecution of the complainant as the complainant knowingly had instituted a false claim before the Court knowing well that he do not have any financial capacity to do so (complainant is not even an income tax assessee) and in view of the booklets of cheque issued, admission on the part of the complainant that there were dealings in the year 2011, not just one but two DD entries regarding the quarrel, the evasive replies and blatant lie on the part of the complainant proves beyond doubt the misuse of cheque on the part of the complainant and it cannot be ruled out that the present complaint case has been instituted by the complainant to teach lesson and to abuse the process of the Court and further to use the solemn machinery of the Justice for the purpose to0 unholy that complainant cannot be left but must be prosecuted before the Court of Law for knowingly Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:07:30 +0530 bringing false claim for misusing the cheque, contrary to the facts he has sworn in the affidavit and giving false deposition before the Court and evasive replies and abusing the machinery of the Court for the cost to unholy in the cause of the Justice. Since the claim of the complainant is found to be false and have deposed falsely thus he has committed an offence under Section 209 IPC. Section 209 IPC provides as under : "Section 209 Dishonestly making false claim in Court"
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person,makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a termwhich may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, 2016 (155) DRJ 259, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined the scope of Section 209 of the IndianPenal Code and held as under:
"15.1 Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code makes dishonestly making a false claim in a Court as an offence punishable with imprisonment upto two years and fine.
15.2 The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 209 are: (i)The accused made a claim; (ii)The claim was made in a Court of Justice; (iii) The claim was false, either wholly or in part; (iv)That the accused knew that the claim was false; and
(v)The claim was made fraudulently, dishonestly, or with intent to injure or to annoy any person.
15.3 A litigant makes a 'claim' before a Court of Justice for the purpose of Section 209 when he seeks certain relief or remedies from the Court and a 'claim' for relief necessarily impasses the ground for obtaining that relief. The offence is complete the moment a false claim is filed in Court.
15.4 The word "claim" in Section 209 of the IPC cannot be read as being confined to the prayer clause. It means the "claim" to the existence or nonexistence of a fact or a set of facts on which a party to a case seeks an outcome from the Court based on the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:07:43 +0530 substantive law and its application to facts as established. To clarify, the word "claim" would mean both not only a claim in the affirmative to the existence of fact(s) as, to illustrate, may be made in a plaint, writ petition, or an application; but equally also by denying an averred fact while responding (to the plaint/petition, etc.) in a written statement, counter affidavit, a reply, etc. Doing so is making a "claim" to the nonexistence of the averred fact. A false "denial", except when the person responding is not aware, would constitute making a "claim" in Court under Section 209 IPC.
15.5 The word 'claim' for the purposes of Section 209 of the Penal Code would also include the defence adopted by a defendant in the suit. The reason for criminalising false claims and defences is that the plaintiff as well as the defendant can abuse the process of law by deliberate falsehoods, thereby perverting the course of justice and undermining the authority of the law.
15.6 Whether the litigant's 'claim' is false, is not considered merely from whatever he pleads (or omits to plead): that would be to elevate form over substance. To make out the offence, the Court does not merely inspect how a litigant's pleadings have been drafted or the case has been presented. The real issue to beconsidered is whether, all said and done, the litigant's action has a proper foundation which entitles him to seek judicial relief.
15.7 Section 209 was enacted to preserve the sanctity of the Court of Justice and to safeguard the due administration of law by deterring the deliberate making of false claims. Section 209 was intended to deter the abuse of Court process by all litigants who make false claims fraudulently, dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy.
15.8 False claims delay justice and compromise the sanctity of a Court of justice as an incorruptible administrator of truth and a bastion of rectitude.
15.9 Filing of false claims in Courts aims at striking a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false claims. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:07:55 +0530 15.10 The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. More often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. A person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
15.11 The disastrous result of leniency or indulgence in invoking Section 209 is that it sends out wrong signals. It creates almost a licence for litigants and their lawyers to indulge in such serious malpractices because of the confidence that no action will result.
15.12 Unless lawlessness which is all pervasive in the society is not put an end with an iron hand, the very existence of a civilized society is at peril if the people of this nature are not shown their place. Further if the litigants making false claims are allowed to go scot free, every law breaker would violate the law with immunity. Hence, deterrent action is required to uphold the majesty of law. The Court would be failing in its duties, if false claims are not dealt with in a manner proper and effective for maintenance of majesty of Courts as otherwise the Courts would lose its efficacy to the litigant public."
16. This Court hopes that the Courts below shall invoke Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code in appropriate cases to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal (supra), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naida v. Jagannath (supra), Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.(supra), Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (supra), Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (supra), Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India(supra).(Emphasis supplied)
32. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements and the facts of the present case where it has been found that the claim made by the complainant herein is gross abuse and misuse of process of law and I am of the prima facie view that the complainant has set up a false claim before the Court which amounts to offence under sections 191, 193 and 209 of the IPC, criminal prosecution Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:08:09 +0530 is required to be initiated against him. A separate complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C is, therefore, being made to Ld. CMM, NorthWest, District Rohini for taking necessary steps under the provisions of IPC against the Complainant herein Krishan Pal s/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal and in particular u/s 191/192/201 IPC.
33. Hence, by bring forth the circumstances as enumerated above, the accused has discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of debt/liability/consideration was improbable/doubtful and hence the onus shifted back to the complainant to prove it as a matter of fact.
34. It is a settled law that standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution a criminal case is different and while prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of probabilities ( Reliance placed on Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54).
35. In view of the above discussion and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of any existing legally enforceable debt or other liability.
36. Hence, with the presumptions arising in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act having been rebutted by the accused by beyond doubt, and with the complainant failing to lead clear, cogent and credible evidence to prove that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, the accused Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Dhan is held not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act and hence, he is hereby, acquitted. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
VAIBHAV CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:08:23 +0530
37. Accused Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Dhan is directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him. oBail Bonds furnished and accepted.
38. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV
Announced in the open court VAIBHAV CHAURASIA Date: on 30.06.2022. CHAURASIA 2022.06.30 18:10:07 +0530 (VAIBHAV CHAURASIA)
Metropolitan Magistrate04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 37 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed by signature. VAIBHAV CHAURASIA VAIBHAV CHAURASIA Date: 2022.06.30 18:10:18 +0530 (VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV CHAURASIA CHAURASIA Date:
2022.06.30 18:09:34 +0530