Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has to be seen as to whether the Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 respondent no. 2/complainant has been able to prove that there was legally enforceable debt or liability for which the cheque in question Ex. CW1/C was issued by the appellant/accused or that the appellant/accused has been able to rebut the presumption and prove that the cheque in question had not been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability but the same was got issued under the duress, coercion and pressure of the police officials at the instructions of the respondent no. 2 and also on account of threat extended by the respondent no. 2/complainant to implicate him in a false rape case.

24. The foremost defence of the appellant/accused for issuance of the cheque in question Ex.CW1/C is that he was pressurized by the police to issue the cheque in favour of the respondent no. 2 who being a Gazetted Officer exerted pressure on the police to coerce him to issue the cheque, otherwise he did not owe any debt or liability towards the respondent no. 2. The said defence is based on the premise that the respondent no. 2 had some matrimonial dispute with her husband and at her request, the appellant had accompanied her to Uttar Pradesh where her husband was staying in a village to settle their dispute but a quarrel took place there and they were attacked by some of the villagers due to which the appellant refused to accompany the respondent no. 2 again to the said village which infuriated her; and out of revenge she made a false complaint against him and by using her contacts with the police she pressurized the appellant to admit the liability in the Mediation Centre and to issue the cheque in question Ex.CW1/C in her favour without any liability, otherwise he was threatened to be implicated in a Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 false rape case by the respondent no.2/complainant who is Class 1 Gazetted Officer and has acquaintance with the police officers.

29. Admittedly, the appellant/accused had accompanied the respondent no. 2/complainant to settle the dispute of the complainant with her husband in the year 2013. The respondent no. 2/complainant has specified the date on which the appellant had accompanied her to meet her husband and the same is 21.04.2013. The first complaint Mark A was made by the respondent no. 2/complainant against the appellant/accused in Police Station Seema Puri on 24.03.2014. If the version of the appellant is accepted that the respondent no. 2/complainant has implicated him out of revenge because he had refused to accompany her to settle the dispute with her husband, the respondent would not have waited for about one year to lodge complaint against him. Further, a perusal of the complaint dated 24.03.2014 made to the SHO PS Seema Puri Mark A shows that the respondent no. 2/complainant has made allegations of outrage of her modesty by the appellant/accused when she demanded her money and other articles back but there is no allegation of rape against the appellant/accused. During cross­examination, the respondent no.2/complainant has also stated that no action was taken by the police concerned of PS Seema Puri on her complaint Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 in which she has mentioned about the allegations of outrage of modesty and to threaten her with revolver. The contention of the appellant/accused that he was falsely implicated and was pressurized by the police to sign the cheque in question under the threat to be implicated in a false rape case by the respondent no. 2 is also not believable in the absence of any complaint made by the appellant/accused to the Senior Officers of the respondent no. 2 to this effect, who admittedly is a Government Servant and Class I Gazetted Officer in MTNL department, Delhi. Nor any such complaint was made to the police by the appellant that he was being threatened by the respondent no. 2/complainant to implicate in a false rape case.

Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 2/complainant. Except giving the said suggestion, the appellant/accused has not brought on record the name of the police official/officer with whom the complainant had acquaintance in the PS Jyoti Nagar. Though the appellant/accused suggested the respondent no. 2/complainant that at the time of settlement, the police official, namely, Dilbagh was also present which suggestion was again denied by the complainant. The mediation settlement Mark B does not show presence of police official, namely, Dilbagh. Even the said suggestion is contradictory to the further suggestion put by the appellant/accused during cross­examination of the respondent no. 2/complainant that the cheque in question had been handed over to her as he was under pressure from SI Vinay Pratap Singh, PS Seema Puri. It shows that even the accused is not certain that which police official had pressurized him to sign the settlement Mark B and the cheque in question Ex.CW1/C whether he was Dilbagh Singh or SI Vinay Pratap Singh; and whether the police official was from PS Jyoti Nagar or from PS Seema Puri who was threatening him that in case he failed to settle the transaction, he would be sent behind bars in a false rape case.