Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: HOODI in Mr. Venkatappa C vs Mr. Manjunath on 12 February, 2021Matching Fragments
The Private Complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that the Accused is known to his son Mr. V. Tulasiram and well acquainted to his family.
The Accused is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.28, at Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk to an extent of 13 guntas. The Accused offered to sell the aforesaid property the Complainant for a valuable consideration of Rs.72,00,000/ and entered into an agreement of sale on 22.12.2015, and at the time of executing the agreement, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ by way of cash towards advance earnest amount. The Accused has assured that he would execute an absolute sale deed within 6 months from the date of sale agreement after receiving the balance sale consideration.
32. The evidence of PW2 further shows that the parties of this case have made an agreement regarding property of Sy.No.2/8, situates at Hoodi village. The 4th paragraph of the crossexamination of PW2 creates doubt and it is an inconsistent statement because he says that the Complainant had disclosed with PW2 regarding execution of an agreement on 22.12.2015 pertaining to the property. Therefore, the PW2 is the hearsay witness about the agreement dtd.22.12.2015. The PW2 further says that on that day he was not present. But the PW1 in the crossexamination says that on the date of sale agreement PW2 and his son were present.
35. PW3 is the son of the Complainant. He in the chief examination says that the Accused is their family member and he agreed to sell the property bearing Sy.No.2/8, presently within the purview of BBMP jurisdiction having khatha No.338, plot No.6. situated at Hoodi village of K.R. Puram. In that connection the father of the PW3 and Accused agreed to sell the property for total sale consideration of Rs.72 lakhs. Therefore, the PW3 has introduced another set of evidence, which creates doubt regarding the exact quantum of amount involved in the sale transaction. Hence, the evidence of PW3 discloses another quantum of amount of sale consideration but, it does not tally with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 particularly regarding the quantum of amount. The PW3 also deposed similar evidence as that of the evidence of PW2 in respect of his presence in the spot during the time of preparation of agreement. His evidence further discloses that he was not at all present at the time of execution of said agreement and he has not seen it. The PW3 also has not produced any separate document regarding transfer of amount of Rs.60 lakhs by his sister namely Mrs.Nirmala Desai in favour of the father of the PW3. The PW3 used to draw amounts from his father's account as and when required.