Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. With the above referred undisputed facts, now the facts in dispute are analyzed, as already stated the accused has denied the entire case of the complainant as to commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act while recording his plea for the said offence and denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of CW.1 at the time of recording his statement U/s.313 of Cr.PC. On going through the cross-examination of CW.1 and evidence of the accused, it is found to be a specific defence of the accused that on 22.11.2017 the accused entered into registered agreement of sale with one Muniyappa and his family members to purchase the property from them for sale consideration of Rs.23,10,000/-. Since the complainant was the holder of the previous agreement with the said Muniyappa and his family members with regard to the said property, the accused had paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant and the complainant signed the sale agreement as confirming party. Further at the time of registration of the agreement, the advocate for accused asked him to bring three cheques and accordingly he had brought three cheques bearing Nos.325810, 325813, 325814 and the said cheques were lost. Since the said cheques were lost, the accused had given stop payment letter to his banker on 30.01.2018. The complainant by misusing one of the said lost cheques filed the false complaint though the accused is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The accused has also denied the service of statutory notice on him and accordingly prayed for his acquittal in the interest of justice and equity.

22. Now the possession of the cheque in the hand of the complainant is analyzed, as already stated the complainant has specifically stated that the accused had issued Ex.P1-cheque towards discharge of legally recoverable debt which was availed by him in the month of July 2018. On the other hand the accused contended that the complainant having obtained one of his lost three cheques, misused the said cheque in filing the present complaint though he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. In the light of this contention, now the contents of Ex.D4 are analyzed, it is clear that on 30.01.2018 the accused had given stop payment letter to his banker praying for stop payment of three cheques relating to his account as he had lost cheques bearing Nos.325810, 325813 and 325814. In this case Ex.P1-cheque bearing No.325814 is involved. From the said letter, it is clear that the accused had given stop payment letter to his banker with regard to the cheque in question with other two cheques as he lost the same. Admittedly, as per Ex.P2, Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer".

examination of the complainant, the counsel for the accused has specifically put a suggestion to the mouth of the complainant to the effect that at the time of executing Ex.D1-agreement, to pay the amount to the 13 persons the accused had brought cheques and out of that three signed cheques were taken by the complainant from the accused and the complainant misused the cheque and filed false case. CW.1 has specifically denied the said suggestion. However the said suggestion put to the mouth of CW.1 makes it very clear that the three cheques stated to be lost in Ex.D4 is false. Further the suggestion is also put to the effect that since the complainant had taken signed blank cheque of the accused and since there is possibility of misusing the same the accused had given stop payment letter to his banker. This suggestion once again makes it very clear that the accused himself delivered the cheque to the complainant and the cheque in question was not lost or misplaced as stated in Ex.D4. Therefore there remains no doubt that the accused has put up false contention.

24. In addition to the above aspects, as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant, it is also noticed that one of the cheques stated in Ex.D4, i.e cheque bearing No.325810 was presented for encashment and the same was found to be returned on 02.02.2018 as found in Ex.D3. Even the accused during his cross-examination specifically stated that "¤.r 4 gÀ°è ºÉýzÀ ZÉPÀÄÌ £ÀA§gÀÄ 325810 ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.02.2018 gÀAzÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ÀåUÉÆAqÀÄ »AzÀPÉÌ §A¢zÀÄÝ D PÀÄjvÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀ°®è. £À£Àß ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀĺÉÆÃzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è." This version of the accused reveals that he had not taken any action against any person in respect of the cheque bearing No.325810 which is stated to be lost, though it was presented for encashment by some person to his own knowledge. If at all the said cheque was also misplaced or given to the complainant, the accused could have produced relevant documents obtaining the same from the bank. The complainant ought to have made enquiry as to who had presented the said cheque. It is not understood, having knowledge of the presentation of the one of the alleged lost cheque, why the accused had not taken legal action in that regard against the concerned person who had presented the said cheque for encashment. Ex.D3 does not disclose that the said cheque was presented by the complainant himself. The accused being a prudent person ought to have taken appropriate steps, if his lost cheque was being misused as contended. Therefore the conduct of the accused himself reveals otherwise. Further it is also noticed from the evidence of the accused that the accused used to enter the name of the person to whom the cheque was given, when it was given for what amount in the cheque book counterfoil. But on the contrary admittedly he had not entered lost three cheques in the cheque book counterfoil.