IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNEET SHARMA, MM,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Complaint No. 1479/01
IN THE MATTER OF
Sh. Virendra Kumar …. Complainant
Sh. Roshan Lal …. Accused
APPLICATION U/S. 145(2) OF N.I. ACT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the accused is a Govt. employee at Delhi and the complainant is a money lender and is not known to the accused. The accused is not at all the family friend of the complainant.
2. That the brother of the accused , Late Sh. Prem Chand was working as driver and house servant under the complainant in the year 2013 when his father got paralyzed and became seriously ill. The accused ‘s family was in need of money for the medical treatment of his father. The said brother of the accused asked for money to the complainant as he was his employer. The complainant became ready to give Rs. 1 lakh to the brother of the accused with the interest of Rs. 3500/- per month. That the agreed amount was given to the father of the accused and his brother by the complainant in person on 17.01.2016 at the residence of the accused’s father, i.e. House No. 28, New Delhi- 110062.
3. That the accused was witness of the receiving of the said amount of Rs. One lakh by his father and brother. The complainant took the thub impression of the father of the accused on an agreement paper which was kept by the complainant . That the complainant also took under his possession the original papers of salary slip , house receipt etc. and demanded a blank signed cheque as security. The father of the accused was not having any cheque- book at that time and was also not fit to sign the cheque, as a result, the accused had given his cheque as security after being insisted by the complainant.
4. That the accused had returned Rs. 90,000/ in cash to the complainant on 16.10.2005 after mortgaging his house bearing House No. A- 278, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-110062 to Dhanraj and Tarun Kumar who are also the witness of the payment of Rs. 90.000/ to the complainant. The complainant was also given Rs. 7,500/- .in cash after two months of the receipt of Rs. 1 lakh by his father as interest amount. Rs. 3,500 was already deducted by the complainant from the original amount of Rs. 1 lakh at the time of giving it to the father of the accused.
5. The cheque in question was given as security which was misused and manipulated by the complainant. In fact , by filing this criminal case the complainant is playing fraud on the accused person. The complainant has received back his total amount due and now trying to get the double benefit from the same transaction with dishonest intention. The cheque was not for discharge of any debt and other liability when the total amount due was already paid to the complainant by the accused.
6. That the cheque in question has different handwritings which is prima facie proof of manipulation and misuse of the security cheque. Only the signature is of the applicant and the name, amount and date have been filled up by the complainant without consideration.
7. In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the claim of the complainant for the security cheque is not justified and does not come under the provisions of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881which is applicable to the cheques issued against any debt and liability.
8. That no legal notice of demand was given by the complainant and received by the applicant.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has fully cleared its debt and money due with the complainant. However , if complainant has any grievances against the accused in the matter of recovery of the agreement amount , it can be well presented before a competent Civil court and the provisions of N.I. Act can not be misused by raising a false dispute with false story with respect to a security cheque and a cheque without consideration.
It is humbly prayed that considering the above mentioned facts, reasons and grounds of defence of the applicant , the Hon’ble Court may allow this application for recalling the Complainant witness for cross examination and allow this case to be tried as a summon trial in the interest of justice.
( Avinash Nandan Sharma)
Ch. No. 671. Patiala House Court