Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10.

6. On closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating materials on record.

7. The accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and taken specific plea that he had financial transaction C.C.No.54998/2016 with the complainant, he availed only Rs.15,00,000/­ from the complainant. While availing the same, he had issued 8 blank signed cheques, 8 blank signed stamp papers, one signed blank paper, original document of his house. Further, in discharge of alleged loan during pendacy of the trial through RTGS he paid Rs.15,00,000/­ to the complainant as per Panchayath allegedly held in between him and the complainant in presence of D.W.2, D.W.3. On these grounds he specifically claims that despite the payment of Rs.15,00,000/­ to the complainant, the complainant has not withdrawn the cases i.e., present one and the connected cases in C.C.No.53201/2016 & C.C.No.53202/2016. Further, he specifically alleged that, the complainant has misused the cheques issued by him and filed 2 other false cases i.e., C.C.No.53201/2016 for Rs.15,00,000/­ & C.C.No.53202/2016 for Rs.30,00,000/­ and also through one Syed Tahseen, Arul Murugan, K.T.Arun, which was allegedly issued by him in favour of the complainant as a security for the loan of Rs.15,00,000/­. On this alleged misuse he has already initiated legal action against the C.C.No.54998/2016 complainant, K.T.Arun, Syed Tahseen, Arul Murugan. Accordingly, he prays to acquit him and placed reliance on Ex.D.1 to 10 and also examined 2 witnesses namely Ravikumar C. as D.W.2 and Chandru as D.W.3.

21. In order to rebut, the accused has cross­ examined the P.W.1 made several suggestions firstly, the complainant is doing money lending business, secondly, financial incapacity or inability to lent huge sum, however, in contrary he admitted that he had a transaction with complainant. Further, he got examined himself as D.W.1 and two witnesses as D.W.2 and 3.

22. On careful examination of P.W.1 evidence, it transpires that the accused has admitted that he had a financial transaction with the complainant in the month of September 2015 and he borrowed only C.C.No.54998/2016 Rs.15,00,000/­ from the complainant as a security for the said loan of Rs.15,00,000/­ he got issued 8 blank signed cheque, 8 blank signed stamp papers, one signed stamp paper and original document belongs to his house and also stated in the month of August 2017 i.e., during the pendancy of the case, i.e., subsequent to closure of evidence of P.W.1 he allegedly paid Rs.15,00,000/­ to the complainant, for that, he relied upon Ex.D.1 Notarized copy of bank passbook and alleged that the complainant has misused the blank signed cheques issued by him to the complainant and filed private complaints through one Syed Tahseen, Arul Murugan, K.T. Arun against him, for that, he placed reliance on Ex.D.2 to D.5. Further, he alleged Ex.P.9 Certified copy of acknowledgment of debt relied by the complainant is created document. However, he admitted signature found on Ex.P.9 is belongs to him but he alleged the contents have been filled­up as per the whims and fancy of the complainant and specifically stated, he borrowed Rs.15,00,000/­ only from the complainant but not Rs.75,00,000/­. The suggestions of the accused has been denied by the complainant and C.C.No.54998/2016 thoroughly cross examined the D.W.1 wherein he admits the acquaintance with the complainant. Further, he admits that he has not obtained any document or an acknowledgment to show that he had issued 8 signed blank Cheques, 8 signed blank stamp papers, one signed paper to the complainant for alleged transaction of Rs.15,00,000/­ only. So, it is clear that to substantiate his specific defence that he had borrowed only Rs.15,00,000/­ from the complainant and issued 8 signed blank Cheques, 8 signed blank stamp papers, one signed paper to the complainant nothing has brought on record to believe his claim. In the absence of specific documents mere oral suggestion does not prove his contention. Therefore, the said contention of the accused cannot be acceptable without proof to that effect.

27. Further, the accused in order to substantiate his defence about transaction is only for Rs.15,00,000/­ and the alleged settlement held in the month of August 2017 is concerned, he got examined D.W.2 and 3 Ravikumar and Chandru. The D.W.2 and 3 both have stated in their examination in chief of C.C.No.54998/2016 affidavit itself that they heard from the mouth of the complainant that the complainant had received 8 signed blank Cheques, 8 signed blank stamp papers, one blank signed paper, one registered sale deed as a security from the accused for Rs.15,00,000/­. The very statement of these witnesses clearly stands proved that they were not the eye witnesses to the alleged transaction for Rs.15,00,000/­ availed by the accused from the complainant, they are, an hearsay witnesses. Therefore, their evidence with respect to loan borrowed by the accused only for Rs.15,00,000/­ but not for Rs.75,00,000/­ cannot be acceptable.

28. So far as settlement during pendancy is concerned, the D.W.2 and 3 have stated that in presence of them a Panchayath was held in between the accused and the complainant as per the Panchayath the dispute in between the complainant and the accused was settled for Rs.15,00,000/­ same was agreed by the complainant accordingly, the accused paid Rs.15,00,000/­ through RTGS on 19.08.2017 to the account of the complainant and C.C.No.54998/2016 also agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by the complainant against the accused including the instant case but later, the complainant changed his stand and not withdrawn the cases is concerned, the complainant vehemently cross examined both these witnesses, wherein, the D.W.2 and 3 have categorically admitted that, no document was prepared and produced to substantiate their evidence to show that there held Panchayath or conciliation and in their presence the complainant has agreed about the receipt of 8 blank signed Cheques, 8 blank signed stamp papers, one signed blank paper, original document. Therefore, their evidence without any documentary proof cannot be acceptable, even if their evidence is taken in to consideration, the alleged settlement talk was held during pendancy of the case and amount of Rs.15,00,000/­ was paid through RTGS to the account of the complainant, during the pendancy of the case but not prior to initiating the instant case against the accused. Therefore, it is well settled law that, in a decision reported in; AIR 2001 SC 518 in between Rajneesh Agarwal .Vs. Amith J. Balla held that;