Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. It is relevant here to mention that, the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the complainant ie., PW.1 in length but nothing has been elicited to discard or disbelieve the evidence of complainant. It is specifically stated by the complainant in his cross examination that, he has not filed a suit for specific performance against the accused, since the accused has issued the cheque in question towards repayment of the advance sale consideration amount received by him at the time of purchase of site and the said cheque was issued C.C.No.26916/2018 towards cancellation of sale agreement. The complainant has also stated that, he has not filed suit for recovery of money on the basis of Ex.P.13 agreement, since the accused has issued the cheque in question towards cancellation of the agreement. The complainant/PW.1 has also stated that, at the request of the accused he has paid the amount by way of cash, therefore he has not given the said amount either through D.D or cheque. It is also stated by the complainant that, as on the date of execution of the agreement of sale the site was standing in the name of accused. It is true that, the complainant has admitted the contents of para No.11 in Ex.P.13 but he has specifically stated that, as per contents of para No.11 he was ready to get the registration of the site in his name and also issued notice to the accused but the accused approached him for settlement. The complainant has also stated that, he has paid the amount as advance sale consideration amount towards purchase of the site and at that time the accused has agreed to hand over the other original apart from sale deed. The complainant has denied the suggestions made to him that, he was conducting chit business and he had C.C.No.26916/2018 collected blank signed stamp papers and blank signed cheque from the accused towards security of the chit and inspite of amount repaid by the accused he did not return the said documents and by misusing the said documents has filed this false case against him. It is also relevant here to mention that, the accused in his evidence has admitted that, he was successful bidder in respect of chit in the year 2015, at that time the complainant had collected his signed blank cheque and also collected the documents ie original sale deed, Aadhar card towards security of the chit amount and though he has repaid the entire chit amount to the complainant but by misusing the documents and cheque given to the complainant has filed this false case against him.

20. Hence, on careful considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant and admissions of the accused makes it clear that, though accused has denied the execution of the agreement of sale ie Ex.P.13 and his signatures but during the course of cross examination of the complainant and in his evidence has alleged that, the complainant had collected his blank signed stamp papers and blank signed cheque towards security of the chit amount alleged to have been conducted by him and though he has repaid the entire chit amount but the complainant did not return his blank signed stamp paper and blank signed cheque and by misusing the same has filed this false complaint against him. But in order to prove the said allegations, the accused has not produced any documentary proof, except the oral suggestion and self serving evidence nothing has been produced before the court to prove that, his blank signed stamp papers and blank signed cheque have been C.C.No.26916/2018 misused by the complainant and filed this false case against him, but the fact that, his signatures found on agreement of sale ie Ex.P.13 and cheque in dispute ie., Ex.P.1 and handing over the said documents to complainant are remained as it is, therefore though the accused has denied the execution of agreement of sale ie., Ex.P.13 and cheque in dispute ie Ex.P.1 but he admitted the handing over of Ex.P.13 stamp papers in favour of complainant and cheque in question and his signatures on Ex.P.13 and P.1 ie., cheque.

21. In addition to the above, it is also relevant here to mention that, if really the complainant got collected blank signed stamp papers and blank signed cheque towards security of the chit amount and even inspite of repayment of the chit amount, the complainant did not return blank signed stamp papers and blank signed cheque of the accused and by misusing the said documents by filing this case against the accused, definitely the accused would have taken or initiated action against the complainant , immediate after receipt of the notice issued by the complainant dt:9.5.2018 ie Ex.P.9 C.C.No.26916/2018 which was issued much prior to the filing of this complaint and also issuance of legal notice in this complaint, but despite of receipt of legal notice ie., Ex.P.9, the accused has not choosen to give any reply to the said notice, in such circumstances it can be held that, if really the accused did not executed the agreement of sale as per Ex.P.13 and has not received advance sale consideration amount from the complainant as mentioned in Ex.P.13 and in turn the complainant has misused his blank signed stamp paper as agreement of sale and also blank signed cheque, definitely the accused would have given reply to the legal notice dt:9.5.2018 ie Ex.P.9 issued by the complainant by disclosing the said facts, but no reply has been given or denied the contents of the legal notice ie., Ex.P.9, in such circumstances the conduct of the accused in non replying to the notice issued by the complainant and non taking of action may leads to draw an adverse inference against him that, the accused has not denied or taken any action against the complainant with regard to his alleged misuse of blank signed stamp paper and blank signed cheque, since the accused has executed the agreement of sale as per Ex.P.13 and has agreed to C.C.No.26916/2018 sell his site for sale consideration amount of Rs.5,50,000/­ in favour of the complainant and also received an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as advance sale consideration amount at the time of entering into sale agreement with the complainant but not for any other reason.

9.5.2018 ie Ex.P.9 was served on the accused but the accused did not chosen to give reply to the said C.C.No.26916/2018 notice or complied the terms of the said notice. It is also relevant here to mention that, the complainant has issued a legal notice dt: 30.7.2018 ie., Ex.P.4 after dishonour of the cheque in question by calling upon him to pay the cheque amount ie Ex.P.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is also important here to mention that, as already held in the above that, the legal notice ie Ex.P.4 was also received by the wife of the accused as per Ex.P.7(a) and it is held that the notice was served on the accused but inspite of receipt of said notice, the accused has not given any reply to the said notice, therefore if really the accused has not issued the cheque in question towards repayment of the advance sale consideration amount received by him as per Ex.P.13, definitely he would have issued reply to the notice issued by the complainant by denying the alleged fact that, he has not issued the cheque in question towards repayment of the advance sale consideration amount , instead of that, for the first time before the court he has denied the issuance of cheque by contending that, the complainant had obtained his blank signed stamp paper and blank signed cheque towards security of the chit amount C.C.No.26916/2018 and though he has repaid the chit amount , the complainant instead of returning his blank signed stamp paper and blank signed cheque by misusing the same has filed this false complaint, but the accused has not produced any documentary proof or evidence except his oral say to that effect, in such circumstances the conduct of the accused in non giving of reply and without there bing any documentary proof the defence of the accused cannot be acceptable one, on the contrary it may leads to draw an adverse inference against the accused that, the accused has issued the cheque in question toward repayment of the advance sale consideration amount received by him, in favour of the complainant not for any other reason as claimed by the accused in his defence.