Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsigned statement in Page No. 1 To 11 Suresh Goyal vs . Ruchi Dhatia on 31 January, 2015Matching Fragments
2. It has been alleged in the Complaint that the accused had borrowed a friendly loan of Rs. 80,000/ from the complainant on 05.06.2003 against proper documents and promised to pay the same within a short period. It is also stated that the father of the accused had also taken loan from the complainant. It is further stated that in order to discharge the liability towards aforesaid loan of Rs. 80,000/ the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant and thereafter the accused had issued another cheque of Rs. 92,000/ in favour of the complainant which was dishonoured. Resultantly, with respect to the said dishonoured cheque a case u/s 138 of NI Act was filed by the complainant against the accused and her father at Karkardooma Court where the accused pleaded guilty at the time of service of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and on 30.10.2004 the matter was amicably settled by the accused with the complainant. It is stated that both the cases against the accused and her father were settled for a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/. Further, it is added that during the pendency of cases Page No. 2 To 11 Suresh Goyal Vs. Ruchi Dhatia against the accused and her father, a sum of Rs. 92,000/ was paid twice and time was sought by the accused to pay the balance amount with penal amount for delayed payment. Ultimately, it is submitted that the accused had handed over an unsigned paper bearing statement of account and the accused agreed to pay Rs. 1,09,400/ as well as executed a pronote (Ex. CW1/A). It is alleged that for payment of said amount of Rs. 1,09,400/ the accused had issued cheque bearing number 571847 dt. 08.09.2005 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi01 (Ex. CW1/B). The said cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured on 26.09.2005 vide return memo Ex. CW1/C on the grounds "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got served legal demand notice dt. 28.09.2005 (Ex. CW1/D) upon the accused vide registered post as well as UPC (Receipts are Ex. CW1/E to Ex. CW1/G). However, the complainant submits that despite service of notice the complainant has not received his money and hence the present complaint case was filed.