Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. DW1 further stated that He had even called the brother of the complainant who is SI in Haryana Police. The complainant's brother also misguided him and then he called Vijay Bharadwaj and he shouted him not to call again. In the car of complainant, Vijay Bharadwaj on phone told the complainant and Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Advocate, something which was not clear. Thereafter, the complainant told him that accused makes the payment from his side and when complainant would receive payment from Vijay Bharadwaj, he will return the amount paid by accused. Then he paid the complainant Rs.50,000/- in cash in instalments. When the case against him was at final stages, then he told the complainant to file the defamation case for which he had issued two cheques to the complainant which are the cheques in question which were undated cheques. On 30.11.2017, the final judgment was pronounced in which he was acquitted.

21. DW1 also stated that in the month of January 2018 the complainant again presented the first cheque amounting to Rs.20,000/-. Then in the night he called the complainant and complainant threatened him and he also stated that we will settle the matter in court. The main purpose for the cheques was for the defamation case but the complainant misused his cheques by making some false story regarding nonpayment of legal fees. Since last three years the complainant is mentally harassing him by lodging a complaint in various police stations. In one police station one Sl Hans Raj also noted that there is no dispute and mere harassment. One Civil case in Dwarka court was also filed by the complainant against him to mentally harass him.

2025.05.29 15:36:32 +0530 also corroborated with the story of complainant by stating that he spoke with the accused regarding fee after 21.07.2016 and asked him that why he is not paying fees to complainant.

39. Also, why the accused did not mention the date on the cheque if this was given for the defamation case which was about to be filed in future. Therefore, the complainant has successfully raised the doubt on the story of the accused that this further defamation case by the accused is after thought for the present case. Furthermore, accused could not justify his stance of defamation case because on the one side, during DE, he stated that cheque in question was given before the judgment in Rape case i.e during trial and on the other side, he stated that it was given to file defamation case against the prosecutrix of Rape case. This court fails to understand that how the accused perceived in advanced that he will win the Rape case without judgment being pronounced and he will have to file defamation case against the prosecutrix in future. Moreover, why the defamation case against the prosecutrix was never filed, is also not explained. Even it is not explained by the accused that if the cheques were given as advance/token amount of defamation case then what was the total legal fees agreed upon.

42. Accused has not deposed anything regarding the non-filing complaint against Vijay Bhardwaj or against SI brother of the complainant, if both threatened and misguided and not cooperated him. Also, if these cheques were the advance/token cheque for filing of defamation case then also dates should have been filed by the accused upon these. Accused claims cheques were meant for a defamation case i.e it should be after acquittal on 30.11.2017, yet admits cheques were handed over on 05.05.2017 (as per CW2), months before acquittal. This is a clear contradiction and an afterthought by the accused. Also, Accused neither filed any VakalaNama of defamation case, nor showed any draft/plans/documents/WhatsApp chats/call recording to prove that a defamation case was actually contemplated or initiated i.e he has failed to show that complainant was engaged afresh for future purpose.