Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 18:07:19 +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: