IN THE COURT OF SH. APPORV BHARADWAJ, LD. MM.

, DWARKA COURTS

CC NO: 18552/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARANVEER SINGH …Complainant

VERSUS

S.M. OVERSEAS & Others …Accused

D.O.H: 29.01.2024

FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

1. That the present case is pending for disposal before this Hon’ble Court and is at the
stage of final arguments.
2. That the complainant herein has misused the security cheques given by the accused to
him in previous business transactions and filed a false case based on false and forged
invoices that do not carry the signatures of the accused even though the complainant
falsely asserts on the alleged three visits of accused to the showroom of the
complainant, accused took the goods from the complainant personally. In the cross-
examination dated 20.07.2019 a straight question was asked as to why the signatures
of the accused were not taken on the alleged invoices if the goods were given on a
credit basis to which the complainant replied, “I NEVER OBTAINED SIGNATURE
OF ANY CUSTOMER WHILE SUPPLYING THE GOODS ON CREDIT”. Further
said, “I DID NOT GET THE SIGNATURES TAKEN FROM THE ACCUSED
WHILE DELIVERING THE GOODS BECAUSE CHEQUES WERE HANDED
OVER TO ME IN LIEU OF GOODS ON 21.04.2015”.
3. Further said that I did not mention that two cheques Ex.CW1/6 & CW1/7 on
18.04.2015 invoice Ex.CW1/2 as the 2 cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each were only given
as security by the accused and the 2 cheques were to be returned on the next visit of
the accused on 21.04.2015 and the accused would have handed over to the
complainant cheques of his company and would take back the cheques of his name.
However, the complainant while filing the present case misused those 2 cheques of
the accused of Rs. 50,000/- each as per his version in the cross-examination.
4. That the complainant himself admitted in the cross-examination that there is no
mention of the alleged 3 invoices Ex.CW1/1 TO Ex.CW1/3 in his legal notice
 Ex.CW1/12. Further, the legal notice does not talk about the total figure of Rs.
10,01,400/- of the alleged 3 invoices as the same was not forged and fabricated till the
date of issuance of the legal notice. The legal notice restricts itself to the figure of Rs.
10 lakhs which is a gross total of the 4 cheques misused by the complainant.
5. That On page no. 2 of the cross-examination dated 20. 07.2019 the complainant
asserted that he has mentioned the amount of Rs. 10,01,400 in his books of account as
a liability towards the accused but failed to bring his Balance Sheet along with his
ITR’s. Rather complainant concealed his balance sheet from this Hon’ble court as the
accused was not visible on the creditor’s side in the balance sheet of the complainant.
6. That complainant failed to mention the TIN no. of the accused on the forged invoices
because the complainant never sold any goods to the accused through those 3
fabricated invoices although the accused has had the TIN no. since July 2009.
7. That the complainant failed to issue the legal notice to the accused separately in his
capacity although the alleged 2 cheques Ex.CW1/4 & CW1/5 were allegedly issued
by the accused to the complainant from his account and the same does not belong to
the firm M/s S.M. OVERSEAS.
8. That in the cross-examination dated 02.09.2023 in reply to the first question asked by
the accused, the complainant admitted that he was to return the 2 cheques of Rs.
50,000/- each which were handed over to him on 18.04.2015 as the accused told him
that he will take this cheque of personal name and would hand over the cheques of his
company but the accused as per his admission on multiple places in his cross-
examination admitted that he presented those 2 cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each in his
bank malafidely and got all the cheques bounced simultaneously on one date that is on
28.04.2015
9. That the complainant failed to explain why the accused would give him 4 separate
cheques of different denominations if he wished to get them presented in the bank on
the same day. The complainant to this question gave a very funny and ambiguous
reply which could not be accepted by any stretch of the imagination.
10. That the complainant on multiple places during his cross-examination admitted the
fact that he presented all the cheques without any instructions, knowledge, or
permission of the accused which clarifies the motto of the complainant which is to
misuse the blank signed security cheques of the accused which were lying with the
complaint from the previous business dealings.
11. DATE WISE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
a. Alleged date of 4 cheques under complaint dated 21.04.15.
b. Dishonour of 4 misused cheques dated 28.04.15 (as per memo).
c. Date of deposit of Rs. 15,000/- in account of complainant 05.05.15.
d. Date of deposit of Rs. 20,000/- in account of complainant 22.05.15.
e. Date of Legal Notice dated 25.05.15. in which complainant failed to give the
credit of Rs. 35,000/- in his alleged balance towards the accused and gave a
legal notice of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per his false assertion towards the liability of
the accused.
f. Date of deposit of Rs. 20,000/- in account of complainant 11.07.15.
g. Date of first hearing before this Hon’ble Court for Pre -summoning evidence
on 14.07.15 the complainant malafidely failed to mention the receipt of
Rs.55,000/- from the accused in his bank account at Delhi and got the notice
issued for the alleged amount of Rs.10 lakhs against the accused.
h. On the date of Adoption of Pre summoning evidence on 20.07.19. complainant
again kept silent on the fact of the deposit of amount of Rs.55,000/- in his
current account by the accused from Jaipur which clarifies his malafide
intention to misuse the security cheques and to harass the accused. Pertinent to
mention herein that pre-sumoning evidence was conducted after more than 4
years of deposit of the amount in the account of the complainant by the
accused. Further pertinent to mention that in these 4 years at least 4 ITRs of
the complainant must have been filed and it can’t be believed by any stretch of
the imagination that the complainant was not aware of these deposits in his
current account by the accused from Jaipur.
i. The fact of the matter is that the accused only owed Rs.75,000/- towards the
complainant on the day when these 4 cheques were malafidely presented by
the complainant to blackmail the accused as there arose a dispute in the
raids/prices of the gift items supplied by the complainant to accused. The
complainant was charging exorbitantly for some of the gift items that were
available with the other traders at a very low price which created a business
dispute between the accused and complainant. The complainant to teach a
lesson to the accused filled all 4 cheques lying with him in blank signed form
as business security cheques of earlier dealings and placed them all in the
bank.
 j. As the Legal Notice was issued and the complaint case is filed above the
alleged amount of liability of the accused the present complaint case is bound
to be dismissed on this short ground itself. The complainant failed to give the
credit or waiver of the amount of Rs.55,000/- to the accused in the present
complaint.

12. That the forged and fabricated bill book produced by the complainant during the
cross-examination exhibited as Ex.CW1/D-5. The complainant in his cross-
examination dated 04.10.23 admitted in the last part of the 1 page that “THE NAME
OF THE PURCHASER WAS NOT MENTIONED IN MOST OF THE INVOICES”
13. That during the cross-examination date 04.10.23, the complainant admitted that in the
entire bill book of 50 bills, the name of only 5 buyers is mentioned which includes 3
invoices forged and fabricated in the name of the accused herein. This fact reveals that
the entire bill book was forged by the complainant just to create false evidence in his
favour qua the goods allegedly sold to the accused. The complainant in cross-
examination dated 20.07.19 asserted that he never takes the signature of any client in
the bill book even if it’s a credit sale to the customer but the complainant was shown
an invoice bearing the no. 1126 which was part of Ex.CW1/D-5 and the invoice
carried the signature of the customer on it. The complainant evaded the question that
he is confused as to whose signature is there on invoice no. 1126. The fact of the
matter is that had there been any credit sale to the accused herein then the complainant
would have taken his signature so that the accused may not evade his liability later on.
14. That complainant was further asked to verify the signatures on some of the invoices
which looked like a running small “r” and the answer to the same was that these were
the signatures of his CA while entering his bills in his return register. On getting this
answer the complainant was again asked why the running small “r’’ was visible on
some of the alleged invoices to which he failed to give any answer. The fact of the
matter is that this small “r” which showed admittedly the signature of CA of the
complainant was only on some of the invoices.
15. That the present complaint is untenable and non-maintainable before the eyes of law
as the present complaint is drafted based on a false and frivolous story which has been
directed to harass the Accused on personal grounds. Moreover, the present complaint
suffers from material disparities upon the basis of which the present complaint does
not stand on its legs in compliance with necessary provisions of Criminal Procedure
Code and 138 N.I. Act.

Dated: 06.03.2023 Accused

Place: Delhi
Through

MunishVohra (Advocate)
Mobile: 9811427955//9990540099.