IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS.

DEEPALI SHARMA, LD ASJ,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS , NEW DELHI
IN RE: CRL
APPEAL NO. 97/2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
SH. CHANCHAL MEHTA VERSUS
SMT. KUMUD TALWAR
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE
APPEAL OF ACCUSED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
At the outset it is submitted that present appeal is
defective being not arrayed state-as part to the appeal.
The brief facts as stated in the appeal are presented in a
way that to mislead the court. The complainant in
original complaint averred that there was a close
friendly relations between accused and complainant’s
family. The sole defence of the accused / Appellant
during trial is that cheque does not bear his signature
and the Complainant had misused the cheques kept in
the shop for her husband. While complete facts of the
case are as follows:
Brief facts & evidence before the LD. Trial court :
The accused taken a friendly loan of Rs. 8,50,000/-
from complainant and after giving loan to the accused
issued two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.
7,50,000/- bearing number “267150” and
“267454” dated 26.04.2011 and 05.04.2011 of
Syndicate Bank Shahdara. The same is Ex. CW-1/B
respectively. The cheque was dishonoured for the
reason Funds Insufficient vide memo dated
03.09.2011 and 27.08.2011 respectively Ex. CW-1/D
and CW-1/E was sent on 15.07.2-12 it was reported
by concerned Police officials executing bailable warrant
that owner. of house Ashok Kumar told that Accused
was residing: 1-1/2 year before at given address while
the earlier report says that owner says he do not know
the person of such name meaning that accused
deliberately avoiding receipt of Legal Notice and
summons. The Complaint was filed and registered on
04 .11.2011 and PSE was done and accused was
summoned for 30.01.2012. On 16.07.2012 accused
appeared in the court after service at Court of Sh. GS
Nagar, Ld. MM. On 13.08.2012 notice U/s 251 Cr.P.c
was framed. In which the accused has taken stand
that he had not issued cheque in question Cheques do
not bear his signatures and he used to have good faith
on Complainant as his shop was in neighbourhood
and his cheques were kept by Complainant.

Complainant Evidence.
PW-1 Complainant Kumud Talwar
The Complainant clearly says that she had given Rs.
11.5 lacs to the accused. The Complainant clearly says
that she had paid Rs. 5.5 lacs to accused in cash in
the first week of August,2009 and 3 lacs were
given in Octobcr,2009 and besides the present case
had given 3 lacs
prior to April ,2009. It is worthwhile that present case is
for Rs.5,50,000/-. “So far as payment in question I was
having 5.5 lacs since July with me as I had withdrawn it
in the month of July and therefore I could pay the
amount in the first week of august 2009. The said
account is not in my name and it is in the name of my
children having joint account with my husband. (EX.
CW-3 / A shows that 4,50,000 /- was withdrawn from
Bank account number 90102010174004 of Syndicate
Bank Shahdara). The cheques were given in
March,2011. All other question asked by the accused
regarding other cheques or transaction between
husband of Complainant and Accused for which the
Complainant replied do not remember or do not know:
CW-2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mittal, Asstt. Manager
Syndicate Bank.
The witness brought bank statement of accused for the
period of 01.04.2009 to 30.04.2013. The complete
Statement of account shows the behaviour of accused
and the statement shows that Accused used to issue
cheques and the same were dishonoured. In whole 4
year Statement there are number of rejection advice of
cheques.
CW-3 Statement of Abhishek Kumar, Clerk of
Syndicate Bank
This witness brought the record of Account Number
90102010174004 of Syndicate Bank in the name of
Kamal Talwar, Rishi Talwar and Shakti Talwar to show
that Rs. 4,50,000/- has withdrawn on 15.07.2009 and
paid to the accused in the August,2009.
CW-1/4 Sh. Hemant Kumar, Mouja Clerk Record
Room Criminal Karkardooma
This witness brought the record of CC No. 710/2011
Titled Kamal
Talwar Vs. lsha Mehta. The Record shows that accused
Isha Mehta is
The wife of Chanchal Mehta and Accused Chanchal
Mehta is discharge of liabilities of settlement made in CC
No.710/2011 issued a cheque bearing number “086432”
dated 12.05.2014 of Rs. 40,000/- of Central Bank of
India of Rs. 40,000/- from his own account. Later on the
accused requested from husband of complainant not to
deposit cheque for clearance and told that he will pay
Rs.40,000/- in cash and case was withdrawn
The record also shows that in that case the Legal Notice
dated 10.08.2011 was sent through speed post was
delivered on 12.08.2011 to Isha Mehta, wife of accused
on address H-5/21, Ram Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. Hence, the ground taken
by accused that he had not received the Legal Notice is
false ground.

FSL Report
The FSL Report Exhibited CW1/X shows that the
signatures on cheques in question and Cheques given
before the Court in CC NO.710/2011 are done by same
person.

Statement of Accused dated 24.03.2022

Accused says that " I had not taken any loan from the
Complainant. Ex. CW 1/ A and B does not bear my
signature and was not executed by me. The cheque in
question does not bear my· signatures.'' He
Further says that he did not received the Legal Notice.

Defence Evidence:
Accused choose to step himself in witness box and
deposed as DW-1.

DW-1 Accused Chanchal Mehta- In his deposition

accused exhibited the records of case, No.04 / 12 titled
Kamal Talwar Vs. Chanchal Mehta and CC No.
10.5/2011 Kumud Talwar· Vs. Chanchal
Mehta in which the accused was acquitted. In the said
case the accused was acquitted by the Ld. Court on the
ground that the Complainant did not proved her/her
Court of Delhi is [ending in the said case vide Crl L.P.
no. 114/2017 and same is pending for 25.08.2022. But
it is a fact that accused taking false pleas and in case
number 187/2013 Titled Prashant Seth vs. Chanchal
Mehta he has taken same pleas and in which the
accused was convicted. It is pertinent that another case
no.286/2016 Mukesh Kumar Kwatara Vs. Mr. Chanchal
Mehta in appeal the accused moved an Application u/s
391 Cr.P.C. saying that Complainant and her husband
be allowed to be examined but the Hon'ble Appellate
Court has not allowed the same in view of contradictory
pleas taken by accused.

ln view of aforesaid it is clear that from the very first day

accused is taking false pleas such as non receiving of
legal notice, keeping the unsigned cheque book with the
husband of Complainant and non signing of Ex. CW1/
A & B i.e. Cheques.

Reply to Grounds of Appeal:·

a. That grounds taken in Para a of Grounds of

appeal are misconceived as aforesaid facts made
it clear that complainant. clearly proved the
liability of Appellant / Convict. The accused is/
was taking false Plea in all cases and almost all
cases the accused was convicted by respective
Trial Courts and in cases referred as CC No. 105/
11 and 106/ 11 due to lack of some evidence the
accused succeeded at in present case the
Accused at instance did not questioned the
capacity of Complainant and as per law
established by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal 362/2022 Titled Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan
Dass Mahant the Complainant need not
supposed to say about her financial
capacity unless the accused at the first in reply to notice
or at first instance not challenge the financial capability of
Complainant. The account statement placed on record
shows that how the amount was paid to accused. The
other judgements reled by the complainant also
established the case of complainant.

b. That the contention raised 'in para b of Grounds of

Appeal failed in view that accused taken false plea
of not bearing, signature of cheques in question and
this fact falsified by report of FSL. The bank account
of accused shows that how he is defaulter with all
the parties to whom he issued cheque.

c. That the contention raised in para c of Grounds of

Appeal failed as the respondent/ Complainant said
that she had given all the loans to accused in some
short period up to October, 2009 and the cheques
were dishonoured in 2011 when he returned the
amounts to Complainant.

d. That the contention raised in para d of Grounds of

Appeal are false and frivolous as the evidence
clearly shows how the Complainant paid amount to
accused / Appellant.

e. That the contention raised in para e of Grounds of

Appeal failed as the Ld. Trial courts rightly and
fairly achieved the ends of Justice and rightly held
conviction and sentence.

f. That the Accused also failed to answer the question

that why he did not lodged any complaint to Police
of bank official. The truth is that accused is so
brave that he did not bother to return, the amount
to whom he issue cheques in turn of legal liability
and dues not bother to law as despite various
dishonour transaction in his Bank Statement, he is
out of jail despite various convictions and taking
benefit of legal technicalities.
g. That the contention raised in para g of Grounds of
appellate false as said filed judgements not apply
to present case.

h. That the contention raised in para h of grounds of

appeal proved to be misleading as Cross
examination / Evidence always clarify the facts of
the case to prove truth and in the instant as same
was proved by evidence of Respondent /
Complainant.

i. That the contention raised in para i of Grounds of

Appeal false as all the facts are proved in evidence
and the accused is not successful in rebuttals of
presumption as presumption does not apply on
truth.

j. That the contention raised in para j of Grounds of

Appeal are false as the only defence of accused is
non-signing of cheque and misuse by husband of
Complainant and the said facts are disproved as
FSL proves signature and non-filling of any
complaint· of misuse of cheques as alleged shows
falseness of story of Appellant / Accused.

k. That the contention raised in para k of Grounds of

Appeal are false as said filed Judgements not
apply to present case and also in evidence
everything is proved.

l. That the contention raised in para 1 of Grounds of

Appeal are false as Ld. Trial court decided the case
on proving of facts and on the basis of law and in
the interest of Justice.

m. That the contention raised in para m of Grounds of

Appeal are false as the orders dated 12.05.2022
and 21.05.2022 are based on facts and on the
basis of evaluation of law and meets the
requirement of Justice.
n. That the contention raised in para n of Grounds of
Appeal are misconceived as presumption not apply on
truth.

o. That the contention raised in para o of Grounds of

Appeal are false as the said contention was also taken
by accused in a case referred above Mukesh Kwatara
Vs. Chanchal Mehta but neither Trial court nor
Appellate court believed on the false story of Appellant/
accused.

p. That the contention raised in para p of Grounds of

Appeal are not tenable as the said judgements and
written arguments does not help the Accused.

Hence Accused conviction and sentence awarded to

convict / Accused / Appellant in lawful and just. And
present appeal filed by the Convict is a step to mislead
the court. Hence same may be dismissed with
Exemplary Cost.

Delhi
Respondent/complainant
14.07.2022

Through

K.K SINGH Advocate

Ch. No.17, Opp. WW, THC, Delhi-54
M: 9810673660 E-mail:advkksingh@gmail.com