Delhi District Court
Judgment vs . on 14 September, 2016
1
In the court of Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Additional District Judge-1,
North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
M/s. Ishika Roller Flours Mills Pvt. Ltd.
vs.
M/s Kenesis Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Others
(Civil Suit no. 44/15)
Date of filing of the suit---------19-5-2015
Date when order reserved------29-8-2016
Date of final decision------------14-9-2016
(Suit for Recovery)
=================
JUDGMENT:-
In this case, plaintiff company through its director Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel claimed total sum of Rs. 5,64,250/- (principal amount of Rs. 3,71,250/- and interest Rs. 1,93,000/-) along with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from defendant no. 1 company and its two directors who are defendants no. 2 and 3. According to allegations of plaintiff company, it was supplying goods/material to defendants on credit basis from time to time who was maintaining running account and during financial year 2012-2013, goods/material worth Rs. 2,41,250/- was supplied (from 12-4-2012 to 5-6-2012 vide 9 bills/invoices annexed with the plaint) but defendants paid sum of Rs. 70,000/- only on 23-5-2012 through cheque and left balance amount 2 at Rs. 1,71,250/-. Defendants no. 1 and 2 also demanded friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel which was given on 12-7- 2012 through RTGS. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 3,71,250/- became due against defendants and it was agreed upon that it shall be returned with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Defendants in order to discharge their liability issued two cheques in the office of the plaintiff; one cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs dated 7-8-2013 bearing no. 948314 drawn on PNB, Yamuna Vihar Branch signed by defendant no. 3 and another cheque of Rs. 1,71,250 dated 14-8-2013 drawn on ICICI Bank, Dilshad Garden Branch signed by defendant no. 2. Defendants while handling over the said cheques also requested the plaintiff to present the same on or after 5-11-2013.
Plaintiff company presented cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs on 7-11- 2013 but it was dishonoured on the ground of "Instrument out dated/Stale". Second cheque of Rs. 1,71,250/- was presented on 9-11- 2013 and it was also dishonored for the reason "Cheque irregularly drawn/amount in words and figures differ". According to the plaintiff, despite making several personal visits and demanding the amount orally when it was not paid by defendants on one pretext or another, then legal notice dated 28-4-2014 was sent on 29-10-2014 which was served but was not complied with so ultimately suit was filed.
Defendants in their written statement stated that they were having dealings with the plaintiff company since 2007-08 and have made the entire payments upto date. The 9 invoices worth Rs. 2,41,250/- filed on record by the plaintiff however were described as forged and fabricated and it is alleged that no material against the same was ever received. It is also stated that Smt. Neetu Jain was working with the defendants and was having friendly relations with Smt. Neelima Goel, one of the directors of the plaintiff company and Smt. Neetu Jain was purchasing the goods and materials from the 3 plaintiff company in the name of defendants in order to give business and to do favour to the plaintiff company. The cost of the material so purchased from time to time was paid by the defendant company and no liability was left to be discharged because no goods were taken on credit basis. Defendants no. 2 and 3 have shown no personal acquaintance with the plaintiff company or any of its directors. In respect of the two dishonoured cheques in question, defendants explained that it came in the hands of plaintiff company through Smt. Neelima Goel in conspiracy of Smt. Neetu Jain who illegally supplied blank signed cheques of defendants in question when defendants no. 2 and 3 were out of station. Defendants also stated that cheque of Rs. 1,71,250/- is bearing the forged signatures of defendant no. 2. In the written statement, defendants also disputed making payment of any of amount of Rs. 70,000/- on 23-5-2012 through cheque as well as receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs as loan through RTGS. It is stated that under some conspiracy, Smt. Neetu Jain unauthorizedly got transferred Rs. 2 lakhs in the account of defendant no. 1 and lateron immediately withdrawn the same by unfair means for her own use for which FIR no. 641/2013 in police station Bhajanpura has been lodged against Smt. Neetu Jain and others. Receipt of legal notice of demand is also denied and accordingly defendants totally disputed their liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff company.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15-10-2015:
1. Whether the plaintiff has filed forged and fabricated bills and defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff? (OPD)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.5,64,250/- as claimed? (OPP) 4
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Relief.
In order to prove its case, plaintiff company examined its director Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel only as PW-1 whereas defendants examined Sh. Anil Srivastava (defendant no. 2) as DW-1, Sh. Ravinder Kumar from PNB as DW-2 and Sh. Shivaji from ICICI Bank as DW-3. Defendants also tendered in evidence the certified copies of the some relevant part of the charge sheet of the case FIR no. 641/13 of police station Bhajanpura.
I have heard counsel for both the parties and gone through the record. During arguments, no dispute was raised in any manner on behalf of plaintiff in respect of the relevant portion of the charge sheet of case FIR no. 641/13 which are containing the statements of PW-1 recorded in it nor it is alleged that the statements given before police by PW-1 in the capacity of a witness was tutored or under any pressure. My decision on the above issues is as under;
ISSUES NO. 1 & 2:-
Both these issues are connected one so are being dealt with together. Following facts have come on record from the plaint, statement of PW-1, admitted portion of the charge sheet of criminal case containing statements of PW-1, evidence of official witnesses and other proved/admitted documents which on the face of it establish that plaintiff company not only contradicted from contents of its plaint on various aspects but also gave contradictory version through its director PW-1 which makes him unreliable witness. These facts also proves that plaintiff has concealed number of facts and tried to mislead the court so there is no hesitation to say that plaintiff 5 company and its director PW-1 have not come to the court with clean hands and virtually played fraud upon the court. The following facts will also prove that the transaction alleged by the plaintiff in its plaint had never taken place and it was a manipulated one with intention to file false case against the defendants with some ulterior motive. The important facts going against the plaintiff company are as under;
(a) According to the plaintiff company, it supplied goods and material worth Rs. 2,41,250/- to the defendant no. 1 company during financial year 2012-13 vide nine invoices Ex. PW1/3 to 11 from 12-4-2012 to 6-6-2012 which are only carbon copies. Defendants on the other hand denied receipt of any goods under these particular nine invoices and describe the same as forged and fabricated documents.
Plaintiff failed to prove that goods mentioned in the same were delivered to the defendant no. 1 company at any time. These carbon copies of invoices are not legally proved as per law. No notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC issued to the defendants to produce its original. The person who had prepared these invoices is also not examined by the plaintiff as it is not the case of PW-1 that the same are in his handwriting. Even PW-1 has not given the name of the person in his statement who had prepared it on behalf of plaintiff company. The name of the persons to whom the material was allegedly delivered in the office of defendants from time to time is also not mentioned. Plaintiff also not produced the receipts of transport company through which the goods were sent to defendant nor examined any driver of those trucks or four wheelers which carried goods from the office of the plaintiff to the office of defendant. Ex. PW1/8 6 even does not bear the signatures of any person who had prepared it. Ex. PW1/6 and 11 does not bear any signatures of any person who allegedly received the material on behalf of defendants. Admittedly, there was no written order placed with the plaintiff company to supply these materials. In such situation, the delivery of goods and material as per these nine invoices Ex. PW1/3 to 11 is highly doubtful and it can be said that there was no justification available with the plaintiff company for demanding the amount of these invoices.
(b) PW-1 gave statement to police during investigation of case FIR no. 44/14 of police station Shalimar Bagh which is Ex. PW1/D-1 and in that statement he stated that his first transaction with defendant no. 1 company took place on 12- 4-2012 and he met defendant no. 2 first time in the year 2012 itself. Even in the cross examination, PW-1 also stated that his first transaction with defendant company took place in the year 2012 though he does not remember the date or month. However, this fact is totally incorrect because the transactions started between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 much prior to year 12-4-2012. DW-2 an official of the bank also proved four transactions taken place between the parties through cheques from February to September, 2011 which also reject the story of PW-1 that business transaction started first time only on 12-4-2012. Certainly, PW-1 is deposing falsely in respect of relationship of companies due to some ulterior motive and that is why he does not want to bring exact facts before the court.
7(c) Even if for the sake of arguments, PW-1 is to be believed that transaction taken place with the defendant no. 1 company first time on 12-4-2012 and he had met defendant no. 2 first time in the year 2012 itself, then his conduct of giving friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs to defendant no. 1 and 2 on 12-7-2012 is highly improbable and cannot be expected from normal human being and professional businessman when defendants were already under liability and were not making complete payment of the money of the goods already supplied to them and were still having outstanding amount of Rs. 1,71,250/- as on that day. The statement of PW-1 given before police Ex. PW1/D-1 also shows that he knew that defendants have already closed their company just after supply of last material on 6-6-2012 and instead of recovering previous payments of Rs. 1,71,250/-, he gave friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs without taking any security, guarantee or even without execution of documents which clearly point out that this story of loan as setup is not correct and believable. PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he was not having any family relations with the defendants no. 2 and 3 not attended any of their family function so the story put forward by the plaintiff company that PW-1 had developed friendly relations with defendants due to business dealings is unreliable because such kind of business dealing taken place within the period of less then 2 months period (i.e from 12-4-2012 to 6-6- 2012) on credit basis normally does not develop such kind of friendly relations that unsecured loan can also be given instead of recovery of previous amount. PW-1 further stated that he had also given loan to others also who were having 8 running business dealing with his company but he could not tell names of any such persons. Certainly, plaintiff company and PW-1 are concealing some material things from the court and not disclosing real facts. He apparently has created a fabricated story of giving of loan of Rs. 2 lakhs which had never taken place.
(d) The case of the plaintiff company is that sum of Rs. 70,000/- was received through cheque as a part payment from defendant no. 1 company on 23-5-2012 against the total 9 invoices amount of Rs. 2,41,250/-. Defendants denied giving of any such amount through cheque. Plaintiff did not examine any bank official to prove that this amount of Rs. 70,000/- was received from the bank account of defendant no. 1 company through cheque. Accordingly, the making of part payment by the defendants against the outstanding liability of Rs. 2,41,250/- as per invoices Ex. PW1/3 to 11 and leaving admitted balance of Rs. 1,71,250/- is not proved. Plaintiff company in this regard has created a false story regarding the liability of the defendants.
(e) PW-1 had allegedly given loan of Rs. 2 lakhs to the defendants from the account of his company and not from his own pocket. No resolution of board of directors is produced to show that any authority was given to PW-1 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the account of company in order to give loan to the defendant no. 1 and 2. Infact no such resolution was ever passed before giving this loan as admitted by PW-1 in his cross examination. Under which capacity PW-1 transferred the funds of a company 9 without permission and consent of other directors to the account of defendant no. 1 has remained unexplained fact. No income tax return of the plaintiff company produced to show that such loan transaction was shown in it. Accordingly, in such situation, an adverse inference has to be drawn against plaintiff company and its version regarding giving of loan to the defendant company cannot be accepted as correct.
(f) The alleged running statement of account of two years Ex. PW1/13 pertaining to defendant no. 1 company maintained by the plaintiff company is from 1-4-2012 to 31-3-2014. However, this ledger statement of account is incomplete and thus cannot be relied upon. No entry of two cheques in question Ex. PW1/14 and 15 received from defendants is shown in it. No credit entry of the cheques amount was made when the same were received and no debit entry was made when the same were dishonoured. This ledger also mention about some voucher numbers (under column no. 4) against each entries which are also not produced. Accordingly, such incomplete statement of account Ex. PW1/13 being maintained by the plaintiff company cannot be relied upon and is liable to be discarded. Mere fact that defendant company has also not produced its own statement of account does not mean that incomplete and incorrect statement of account filed by the plaintiff has to be accepted as correct and true in all situation.
(g) As per paragraph no. 15 of the plaint, defendants have asked the plaintiff to present both the cheques on or after 5- 10 11-2013 but admittedly the cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs Ex. PW1/14 was present twice. Plaintiff has not disclosed in the plaint the fact of first presentation of this cheque on 20-8- 2013. Why this cheque was presented second time when it had already become outdated/stale is not understandable. The plea taken that inadvertently it was presented cannot be accepted as valid explanation because the second time this cheque was presented on 7-8-2013 just after next day of recording of statement of PW-1 by police Ex. PW1/D-1 apparently to create a defence in criminal case or to save himself from any adverse police action.
(h) PW-1 also stated in his cross examination that both the cheques Ex. PW1/14 and 15 for Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs.
1,17,250/- were given to him by defendant no. 3 in the office of defendant no. 1 company situated at Dilshad Garden but as per his statement Ex. PW1/D-1, these cheques were given to him only by defendant no. 2 and by none else. However, in other statements dated 8-9-2014 and 14-5-2015 given to police in case FIR no. 641/13, PW-1 stated that the cheques were given to him by some lady staff of defendant no. 1. Thus, PW-1 is also giving contradictory version by whom the cheques were given to him.
(i) As per cross examination of PW-1, cheque Ex. PW1/14 for Rs. 2 lakhs was given to him by defendant no. 3 personally in the office of defendant no. 1 situated at Dilshad Garden. As per statement Ex. PW1/D-1, the cheques were given in the month of January, 2013. It has also come on record from the statement of DW-1 that this office of Dilshad 11 Garden is not functioning since September/October, 2012. Otherwise also, if the statement of PW-1 given before police Ex. PW1/D-1 is taken into consideration then it reveals that defendants had closed their office just after last delivery of the goods dated 6-6-2012 and before giving loan of Rs. 2 lakhs on 12-7-2012. Certainly, PW-1 is deposing falsely that cheques were given to him in the office of defendant no. 1 situated at Dilshad Garden in January, 2013 which was already closed in between June-July, 2012. Further more, PW-1 also admitted in his cross examination that fact mentioned in para no. 13 and 14 of the plaint that cheques were given to him in his own office are incorrect. Plaintiff company and its director PW-1 are not coming to the court with correct facts and certainly concealing various important and material facts.
(j) PW-1 also admitted in his cross examination that facts mentioned in para no. 15 of the plaint that defendants had requested him to present the cheques on or after 5-11-2013 is not correct because defendant no. 2 was not present when cheques were given. However, he tried to twist this fact by giving explanation first time that defendant no. 2 telephoned him subsequently in this regard and made request. Such explanation cannot be accepted as genuine because it not only going against the contents of the plaint but also not mentioned anywhere in it.
(k) Defendants have taken a defence that cheque Ex. PW1/15 for Rs. 1,71,250/- is bearing forged signatures of defendant no. 2. This cheque clearly shows that signatures are made 12 with different pen and other contents are filled up by different pen and handwriting. No steps were taken by the plaintiff company to prove and compare the handwriting and signatures of defendant no. 2. Similarly, after seeing the cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs Ex. PW1/14, it can be said that two different pens were used to sign and to write other contents of this cheque. The possibility of misusing of blank signed cheques of the defendants in such situation cannot be ruled out. The defence of defendants that blank cheques came in the hands of plaintiff company through their employee Smt. Neetu Jain appears to be more probable and convincing.
(l) The legal notice Ex. PW1/18 is dated 28-4-2014 and according to para no. 19 of the plaint it was sent to the defendants on 29-10-2014 by speed post and registered post. However, no postal receipts placed on record shows that it was sent on 29-10-2014 as postal receipts lying on record are Ex. PW1/19 to 24 which are only of registered post and not of speed post which are also dated 30-4-2014. Thus, plaintiff has failed to prove that this notice was ever served upon the defendants after its dispatch by registered post or speed post on 29-10-2014. Hence, defendants were correct in alleging that it was never served upon them. Plaintiff nowhere in the plaint mentioned about sending of the notice 2-3 times prior to 29-10-2014 which PW-1 tried to explain when justification of delay was sought.
(m) This legal notice Ex. PW1/18 in para no. 1 mention that Sh. Rajesh Goel and Sh. Suresh Goel are the directors of the plaintiff company and vide resolution dated 25-4-2014 passed 13 by them, Sh. Suresh Goel has been authorized to take legal action against defendants. On the other hand, PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that Sh. Rajesh Goel was not the director of the company on the said date and Smt. Neelima Goel was the director of the company since beginning whose name was not mentioned in the notice anywhere. Sh. Rajesh Goel had already been changed much prior to the date of issuing of the legal notice as admitted by PW-1 in the cross examination. He also specifically admitted in his cross examination that facts mentioned in para no. 1 of the legal notice Ex. PW1/18 are wrong. PW-1 has not brought any such resolution dated 25-4-2014 on record apparently due to the reason that notice was issued by himself only as admitted. Hence, this notice cannot be treated as issued on behalf of the plaintiff company under any resolution or authority and being issued unauthorizedly by any director has to be rejected.
(n) In the notice Ex. PW1/18, the dishonour ground of cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs is mentioned as 'funds insufficient' whereas the same is not correct because this cheque was dishonoured on the ground of being 'outdated/stale'. Now plea taken that it was a typing mistake cannot be accepted when no corrigendum of this notice was ever issued.
(o) PW-1 in his cross examination stated that he met Smt. Neetu Jain several times in the office of defendant no. 1 and lastly in the year 2013 but he could not deny the fact that he stood as an attesting witness of a sale deed dated 4-4-2015 executed by Smt. Neetu Jain in favour of Sh. Vishnu 14 Aggarwal. (The original of this sale deed has now been retained in civil case titled as Vandana Srivastava vs. Neetu Jain as per directions of Hon'ble High Court). It means that PW-1 even met Smt. Neetu Jain after 2013 also. Further more, he in his statement dated 8-9-2014 given to police in case FIR no. 641/13 (which was tendered in evidence and there is no dispute of such statement) alleged that he came to know the name of Smt. Neetu Jain first time in police station on 28-4-2014 and he never talked with her after July, 2012. This statement given by PW-1 to police in this regard is certainly wrong. Why PW-1 is changing stand again and again regarding his knowledge and familiarity with Smt. Neetu Jain and why he is not deposing correctly about his relationship with her has remained unexplained fact.
(p) PW-1 also stated in his cross examination that he met Smt. Neetu Jain several times in the office of defendant no. 1 company situated at Karawal Nagar till the year 2013 but he also admitted the fact that this office was already closed in January, 2012. It means that PW-1 continued to meet Smt. Neetu Jain even after 2013 at other places and even met her on 4-4-2015 in the office of Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of one sale deed. What are the reasons of PW-1 in not telling the court the facts of meeting Smt. Neetu Jain after 2013 has to be explained in which he failed.
(q) PW-1 in his cross examination totally denied knowing any Sh. Vishnu but in the cross examination of DW-1, its reference was given by plaintiff company itself. He is none other but the relative of PW-1 as suggested to DW-1 in his cross 15 examination. Smt. Neetu Jain executed sale deed of one immovable property in the name of Sh. Vishnu Aggarwal and PW-1 was one of the attesting witnesses of the same. Why plaintiff company did not want to bring forward the name of Sh. Vishnu Aggarwal has not been cleared.
(r) PW-1 in his cross examination totally denied encashment of any cheque of defendant no. 1 company of Rs. 90,000/- bearing no. 009696 dated 20-3-2012 in the account of plaintiff company. However, DW-3 proved this encashment and no cross examination of this witness was done on behalf of plaintiff. PW-1 in this regard has totally deposed wrong facts in the court.
The above number of facts point out that plaintiff and PW-1 are not coming to the court with clean hands and concealing the actual facts. Though DW-1 admitted in his cross examination that sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was received in the account of the defendant no. 1 company through RTGS on 12-7-2012 but plaintiff company cannot take benefit of this admission of DW-1 when it is not proved that the same was against any loan transaction as alleged in the plaint. DW-1 has taken a stand that this amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was got credited due to some conspiracy of Smt. Neetu Jain who through fraud and by committing forgery immediately withdrawn that amount within one hour when defendants were out of station. Some of the documents placed on record including FIR Ex. DW1/B and reply of the police given to court during anticipatory bail application of Smt. Neetu Jain point out that the cheque bearing no. 948314 of PNB dated 7-1-2013 (which is of Rs. 2 lakhs and now bearing date of 7-8-2013 as Ex. PW1/14) was earlier lying with her and she was claiming that its amount was of Rs. 94 16 lakhs. Defendants alleged that Smt. Neetu Jain and PW-1 in conspiracy with each other misused this blank cheque for their own purposes and were giving different version and ultimately it was passed over from Smt. Neetu Jain to plaintiff company because how this cheque of Rs. 94 lakhs dated 7-1-2013 was converted into a cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs with date of 7-8-2013 is not explained by the plaintiff. However, defendants have not led any evidence in this regard nor such grounds were taken in the written statement. Accordingly, this argument advanced based upon some documents which were only annexed with an application under section 340 Cr.P.C. and not proved or tendered cannot be entertained.
Similarly, DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence alleged number of facts which are beyond pleadings and nowhere mentioned in the written statement so are liable to be rejected out rightly but it does not mean that for the weakness of the case of the defendants, plaintiff has to be given any benefit because plaintiff has to stand upon its own legs. DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence mentioned certain facts regarding making of advance payments of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 90,000/- through cheque and Rs. 60,000/- through cash) in the month of March, 2012 but no supply was received against the same, extortion committed by Smt. Neetu Jain and procuring cheques in question, theft of machinery committed by Smt. Neetu Jain, legal proceedings taken and legal notice issued by her, illegal transfer of property no. C-12/129, Yamuna Vihar by Smt. Neetu Jain etc. but all these facts were not alleged in the written statement so cannot be considered.
The above mentioned facts and circumstances from point
(a) to (r) clearly shows that even if the evidence of DW-1 is rejected being mostly against pleadings, then also the various contradictions, concealments of material facts and inconsistencies in the plaint and 17 evidence of PW-1, plaintiff company has to be denied the relief claimed. The bills and invoices Ex. PW1/3 to 11 as produced by the plaintiff are firstly not proved and secondly the possibility of its being manipulative and fabrication cannot be ruled out. The alleged loan transaction of Rs. 2 lakhs is also not reliable and acceptable transaction. Accordingly, the claim of plaintiff to recover the amount of Rs. 5,64,250/- from the defendants is hereby rejected. These two issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
Since, it is held above that plaintiff company is not entitled to any principal amount or any interest so no question of payment of any pendentlite or future interest arises. Otherwise also, the invoices Ex. PW1/3 to 11 are not containing any term of payment of any interest in case of delayed payment and the alleged loan of Rs. 2 lakhs was given as a friendly loan and it was not a commercial transaction so the making of demand of 18% p.a. future interest is not made out in any situation. There was no written agreement containing any interest clause upon any payment. Nothing is disclosed by PW-1 either in plaint or in his statement on which date, time and place an oral understanding had arrived at that interest at the rate of 18% p.a. shall be payable on alleged outstanding amount or on friendly loan amount. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants by holding that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest as claimed which otherwise also is not made out.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF):-
Defendants also moved an application under section 340 Cr.P.C. against plaintiff on 21-4-2016 which was ordered to be decided with final judgment. It has been clearly held above that PW-1 18 in his statement has deposed falsely on number of facts and even contradicted against his own plaint. Various concealment of facts are also found done intentionally in order to mislead the court and to play fraud upon the court. In this application, defendants have virtually repeated the same points which have been discussed above and plaintiff again in reply stated that the version given in the court by PW-1 and in the plaint is correct. Number of facts as discussed above itself proves that wrong case was filed in the court by creating false evidence. In my view, interest of justice demands that PW-1 Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel and plaintiff company should not be spared with leniency. PW-1 cannot be pardoned merely on the ground that he is aged about 60 years at present. He along with the plaintiff company prima facie committed an office of perjury, giving of false statement in the court and filing of false claim in the court etc. There is no need to repeat the misdeeds of PW-1 while dealing with this application under section 340 Cr.P.C. which are already discussed above while deciding issues no. 1 and 2. Even PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that certain paragraphs of plaint and legal notice sent by him are not containing the true facts. Accordingly, I am allowing this application under section 340 Cr.P.C. of the defendants and it is hereby directed that plaintiff company and its director Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel (PW-1) should be prosecuted in the concerned court of Magistrate through filing of complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. Reader is directed to take necessary steps in preparation of the complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. so that it can be filed within a week before the court of ld. CMM.
In view of above discussions, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the above circumstances that lot of mental harassments and torture might have been suffered by the defendants due to filing of this false case and they might have spent lot of money 19 in their defence by engaging lawyer and for proving their innocence, I deem it appropriate to direct plaintiff company to pay additional compensation and costs of Rs. 50,000/- to all the three defendants. Decree be prepared and file be consigned to record room.
(Ashwani Kumar Sarpal) Dt. 14-9-2016. Addl. District Judge-1.