Parmod @ Parmod Kumar v. Geeta Devi
!"# $%&%!'())
*
+
, -&.& ,
( /0
) , ) 1 22222
22222 , ) 1)) 0
! " !
#"$
%&%%&'
()!
! "!
!!
,!$!
, -%&&.// %& 0 $1$ 2 $ ) !0+(
3!
" " !
% !
! ! (
+ $ 4 && &&&5. $
!
" " ! !!
3-6646% %&%& $
4 && &&&5.!
$ 7
-&%&%&89&'
+ :/ ;!
3+
+ 7 $+ !+!
$ 7 0
, !$$ 8&%& +
&&9%&
! $
3
99+
!$!
(
+ $$ ! ! 8&9%&
! !;+ $!
!
! &&%%&9 + +!
99 ! %&%&9
+!
"! !$ !
< $!
!$ ,=. $ ,=.%
!"!
3 !
"-6646% %&%& >< $$ 8&%& ><% ( " &&9%& ><
! ><8 ( :
7
$
><?6
+ (
!
$
&4&9%&9
$
, ,!$!
+ +!
( !$!
!
$
< $!
2!
1$ !
:/ @ - " )=. +!
$
.
><)5.,( :
7
$
><)5:.,(
<
"!
!
+!
!
($
><)5,.,( !
!
" ($
><)%.,( !
%&&6%&$ ;A !
: $ ><). ! (:!!
" -! !
" ><)8. ! (:!!
" !
"
3 ><)6. ! ( $ B !
" ><)4. ! ( # A$ 7
!!
$
%&&%%&' 8 C
!
!
)!
"!
! $ +!
.
12. In the present complaint, according to the complainant, he had advanced a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused on friendly terms as she was in need of money. However, the complainant has failed to mention the time and date of the advancement of alleged loan to the accused. It is also strange that the complainant had advanced the loan of such a huge amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused without any written agreement or in the absence of any independent witness. He has also failed to disclose the purpose for which the accused had allegedly taken the loan from end. According to the case of the complainant, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and 5,00,000/- from his bank account on 20.11.2014 & 25.11.2014 respectively and had paid an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- out of the cash above mentioned to the accused.
However, there is no evidence that the above-mentioned cash which was withdrawn by the complainant from 20.11.2014 and 25.11.2014 was for the purpose of lending money to the accused. CW-2 Smt. Sharda is real aunt of the complainant and the accused had been her tenant for 2-3 years. She appears to be an interested witness. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to mention here that the accused has examined Vinod Kumar, Senior Associate, SBI, Azad Nagar, Hisar as DW-1 who has proved that the accused had moved an application (Ex. D1/C) to the Bank for stopping payment of various cheques including cheque Nos.
556529 to 556533 and this application has been moved on 20.05.2017 whereas the disputed cheque is of 12.07.2017. The complainant had moved an application before the SHO, Police Station, Balsamand on 20.05.2017 mentioning that her purse/hang bag containing the cheque Nos. 556529 to 556533 had been stolen. Although, no witness from the police station has been examined by the accused but the complainant himself has failed to prove his case.
the accused is hereby acquitted of the charge levelled against her. Her bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
6 D
(< $!
$ ++ (
($
3
"!
7!
" !$ ; $!
!+
3 (!
!
!
$
" !
"<!
" (
+
$ 3!
3!
3
!
"!
!
+!" ("
(<
(
+
+
3!
3
+
( 4 /
" "
$ ! $ !
+!
+
!
! (
!,=.$
(
$ 4 7
!
!$/ + $
(
4
" $
+!
< $
B $
$ ! !
$ !
;A!
: $ %&&6%& "5 !
+!
3.7
7 "+!
!
( ! <!
(! !!
! "!
3 + (
!
$ $
"
+ 3!
3
!
! -
!
$ 3
$!
+ $ !
$ / !
$
!
+!
< !
5
" 5#
!
7 " !
" .<!
! !!
5!
3!
!
" " (
!
.3!
99
!
!
"
+ #"$
; 0$, $
;
$
!
+!
<
"
+
" !
"
!
+ ( !
"(
9
+
! ( )!
! "!
!+!
!$"
#"$
D
(
+
( )!
*!
5 "!
! $ (!" !
$!
.
+ !
!
'
( ,
+ ( ! , + !
!(
+!
( , ! ( !+!
!+ & !+ !
!
!" !
(!$! #"$
%&%%&'
( )!
*!
"!
!!
,!$!
, -%&&.// %&
!
!
$!
#"$
, +!
!$ , ) 1 .678
!
" !