Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Defense of the accused is as follows:

He was working as a priest in Shanimahathma Temple near Banashankari. Said temple is owned by one Mr.Jayannagowda. In 2016 he has lost his cheque and other documents. After lapse of 15 days, from the date of loosing those cheque and documents, one Mr.Chandrashekar Shetty called him and demanded Rs.30 lakhs to give back those documents. Mr.Chandrashekar Shetty has threatened that he should leave the job of priest in the temple stating that he intends to appoint another person in his place. Further accused contends that that time he went to Kumara Swamy layout police station to give the complaint, but they have denied to take complaint. As such he filed private complaint before 44th ACJM Court, Bengaluru about loosing his 6 to 7 cheques and other documents. Among those lost cheques, the disptued cheque also included. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered and same is produced here. Thereafter, complainant has filed this false case stating that he has given Rs.28 lakhs to him and also given false evidence in this case. The complainant has also filed another case in CC.No.32833/2018 against him before 30th ACJM Court. Hence prays to acquit him from this case.

23. He admits that as per his account statement on 09.09.2015 one Mr.Somashekar has received Rs.14 lakhs and Mr.Manjunath has received Rs.20 lakhs. He admits that on 11.09.2015 he has drawn Rs.4,65,000/- from his account. He deposed that by withdrawing the amount through Mr.Somashekar and Mr.Manjunath, said mney was given to the accused. He deposed that he cannot examine Mr.Somashekar and Mr.Manjunath before the Court. He deposed that he has given notice to the accused as per Ex.P3. He denied the suggestion that notice is not served to the accused. He deposed that he has given notice to the accused to his 4 addresses of Yellapura and Bengaluru. He admits that those notices are returned as 'addressee not found'. He deposed that accused has purchased a house for Rs.1,20,00,000/- near Konanakunte Cross, near Soudamini Choultry. He admits the the copy of the complaint given by him on 26.03.2017 and it is marked as Ex.D1. He deposed that Mr.Jayanna has written the cheque and promissory note given by the accused. He denied that the signature shown in Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P24 promissory note are not made by the accused. He deposed that he has not declared about amount given to the accused in his income tax returns. He denied that he has filed false case against the accused by misusing his lost documents by joining his hands with temple trustee Mr.Jayanna. The remaining suggestions of the counsel for the accused has denied by him.

41. In his chief examination, the accused deposed that he lost his cheques and documents in December 2016. Approximately 15 days after losing the cheques, he received a phone call from Mr. Chandrashekar Shetty, the complainant, who informed him that he got the documents and he has also demanded Rs.30 lakhs to the accused. In part of the cross-examination of DW.1 in para No.3 dated 17.01.2025, he has deposed that after 15th December 2016, he got to know that the complainant had found his lost documents. The accused has given a private complaint before 44th ACJM Court, Bengaluru regarding loosing his cheques and documents and for alleged demand made by the complainant for Rs.30 lakhs on 01.02.2017 as per Ex.D3.

42. During in his part of the cross-examination, the accused has deposed that on the same day, when he got a call from the complainant, he had tried to give the complaint to Kumara Swamy layout police station, but they have not received the complaint. It is significant to note here that the accused admitted during his cross- examination that he knows the complainant, as the complainant used to visit Mr. Jayanna's house and the accused had seen him there. He further deposed that the person who called him, issued threats, and demanded Rs. 30 lakhs in exchange for returning his lost documents was none other than the complainant. When such being the case, in normal circumstances, if any prudent person received such threatening calls for a huge amount of Rs.30 lakhs, he would definitely lodge a police complaint without making any delay. But in the present case the accused has not taken any such steps immediately after he receiving a call from the complainant as alleged. There is no proof to believe that he has tried to give complaint to the Kumara Swamy police station, but they have refused to take it. Police have no reason to refuse to receive his compliant. If jurisdictional police refused, then he ought to have approached higher police officials to take immediate steps.