Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Accused was granted right to cross-examine the complainant on an application filed u/s 145(2) NI Act vide order dated 01.05.2019. The complainant was examined as CW-1 thereby adopting his pre-summoning evidence as post-summoning evidence and was cross-examined and discharged. Vide separate statement of complainant, complainant evidence was closed on 03.06.2019.

7. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2019 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and she was granted an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against her at trial. While explaining the circumstances appearing in evidence against her, accused stated without oath that she does not know the complainant, she did not take any amount from complainant, she did not issue the cheque in question, she did not sign the cheque in question though the signatures on the cheque are similar to her signature, she did not fill the contents therein, she did not receive legal notice but it bears her correct address, she was proprietor of M/s. SBS Builders but her husband was looking after the said business, her husband committed suicide on 26.03.2016, she did not have any transaction with Ct. Case No.20138/17 Digitally signed by Jai Singh vs Amita AAKANKSHA 2023.11.07 15:39:10 +0530 complainant and does not have any liability. Accused preferred not to lead evidence in her defence.

12. Per contra, Ld. counsel for accused also filed written submissions. It has been contended on behalf of accused that when Jai Singh vs Amita Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA 2023.11.07 15:39:21 +0530 final arguments were heard by Ld. Predecessor and Ld. counsel for accused raised objection of limitation then complainant came up with an entirely different story that a cheque of Rs. 500/- was honored in account of complainant by accused and thus complainant moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of witness, that accused is a widow housewife whose late husband was in a business of building material supply and out of love and affection he made accused proprietor of such business in 2013, but her husband committed suicide on 23.03.2016, after his demise the business was closed as there was no one to run the business, it can be seen from Ex. CW-3/3 which shows that no cheque book was issued after demise of husband of accused, complainant is about 75 years old and accused is only 35 years old and thus there can be no friendly relations between them, there is no written agreement of loan as alleged, complainant deposed that he comes to court with one Rishi Prakash, Rishi Prakash is the instrument of filing the present false case as accused never met the complainant in her life but Rishi Prakash had business relations with husband of accused and he might be instrumental in providing cheque in question to the complainant, further complainant deposed that a cheque of Rs. 500/- was given by accused in presence of Rishi Prakash but the said person was not examined as witness by complainant, even otherwise as per version of complainant he has received Rs. 500/- as part repayment of the alleged loan but still presented cheque for a total alleged loan amount of Rs. 10 lacs although the alleged liability of accused would be only of Rs. 9,99,500/-, complainant also deposed that cheque of Rs. 500/- was given by accused for verification of her account, that usually verification of account is done by lender at the time of extending loan and if the story of verification of account is true then the case of complainant that loan was extended in 2012 and 2013 becomes false ad concocted, also complainant deposed that after accused left his Jai Singh vs Amita Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date:

16.6 Complainant further examined bank witness Sh. Prithvi Sethi as CW-3 who relied upon the bank account statement of accused w.e.f. 01.10.2015 till 31.12.2015 (Ex.CW3/1) and deposed that cheque no.125013 dated 06.10.2015 was encashed for Rs.500/- in the account of complainant. The witness also relied upon his authority letter (Ex.CW3/2) and relevant information regarding date of opening of account and issuance of cheque book (Ex.CW3/3).

16.7 To prove her defence, accused also examined herself as DW1 and deposed, in brief, that her husband started proprietorship firm M/s. SBS Builders in December, 2013 and made her the proprietor, her husband committed suicide on 26.03.2016 as he had taken some loan from some goons and even after repaying the entire loan, the said persons were threatening to kill him and his family members, her husband used to run the above business and had possession of cheque books of the proprietorship firm, the signature of her husband were similar to her signature which were on the said cheques and she never objected, the cheque in question might have been signed by her husband, she saw the complainant for the first time in the court, she never took any loan from the complainant, her husband did not discuss about complainant to her, her husband knew Mr. Rishi Prakash who is friend of complainant, Mr. Rishi Prakash might have given the cheque in issue to the complainant, after demise Digitally Jai Singh vs Amita signed by AAKANKSHA Date:

16.8. The defence of accused, as can be culled out from her plea, evidence and cross-examination of complainant, has been that she does not know the complainant, she never met the complainant or heard his name before filing of the present case, she never took any financial assistance from complainant, although the proprietorship firm M/s SBS Builders was under her name but the same was looked after and run by her husband, who committed suicide and that her husband only had possession of the cheque book of the said firm, that her husband had business relation with Rishi Prakash with whom complainant comes to court and Rishi Prakash might be instrumental in giving the cheque in issue to the complainant who misused the same. Now let us examine the defence of accused one at a time.