Interim Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 9 C.C.No.317/SS/2018
Exh.35
13. Whatever stated by me in my evidence affidavit is true and
correct and in token thereof I have signed the affidavit.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 03.11.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01 Laxmibai Shelke by advocate Madan Warge
for the accused :
14. It is true to say that the complaint is filed by my husband.
It is true to say that during his life time I never came in the court or
produced any document. It is true to say that I have not signed any
document filed by my deceased husband in the proceeding. It is true to say
that the statements made in my evidence affidavit para 2 in respect of
narrating the transaction by my husband were not mentioned in the
substitution application made by me. It is true to say that in my complaint
filed by my husband it is not mentioned that he had narrated all the
transaction to me. It is not true to say that I am not aware about the
transaction in between complainant and accused. It is not true to say that
therefore, I had not mentioned the same in my substitution application
and as well as complaint filed by my deceased husband.
15. I am working as a housemaid. I am residing at the address
mentioned in complaint since last 20 years. My husband was cobbler. He
was having shop at Khar Railway station. My affidavit in Lieu of
Examination in chief was prepared by my advocate. It is true to say that I
signed the same. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that my
-- 1 of 5 --
10 C.C.No.317/SS/2018
Exh.35
husband had narrated me everything about the transaction with the
accused.
On oral request of advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 03.11.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date :09.04.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01 Laxmibai Shelke by advocate Madan
Warge for the accused :
16. I do not recollect the date of reading complaint filed by my
deceased husband but he had narrated me the contents of complaint. It is
true to say that I have not signed the complaint filed by my husband. It is
true to say that there is no signature executed by me on any document
filed by my husband. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that my
deceased husband had narrated me entire contents of complaint. It is not
true to say that my husband has filed false case against the accused. It is
not true to say that I am deposing false by reading said false complaint. It
is not true to say that I do not know what has happened in between
accused and complainant that is my husband as I was staying at home. It
is true to say that I have not produced any document to show that we
were staying at Mahim. It is true to say that in the original complaint filed
by my deceased husband, it is not mentioned actually what amount was
-- 2 of 5 --
11 C.C.No.317/SS/2018
Exh.35
paid during year 2008 to 2010. It is true to say that it is not mentioned in
my complaint that from where we have arranged money either
withdrawing it from bank or by other mode in order to give it to the
accused. Witness states that both had joint bank account and out of said
account the money was paid. It is not true to say that the averments made
in para 3 of complaint as to giving money to the accused etc. are false. It is
not true to say that I am deposing false that myself and my deceased
husband had maintained joint account in bank and out of said bank
account money was withdrawn in order to give to accused is false. It is
true to say that I have not specifically given dates, year for approaching
accused requesting him to pay money in my evidence affidavit but we
regularly asked him to pay the money. It is not true to say that accused has
never issued me or my husband any cheque or anything in writing. It is
not true to say that I have deposed false in para 5, 6 and 7 of my evidence
affidavit. It is not true to say that demand notice was not issued to the
accused after dishonored of the cheque. I have already produced the
demand notice at Exh.21. I can not tell whether my husband had issued or
not the demand notice after dishonour of cheque No.79534 for
Rs.20,000/- after its dishonour on 07.01.2013. It is not true to say that
accused has not issued any of the cheques to my husband. It is not true to
say that my husband has not issued for the dishonor of the cheque bearing
No.023176 dated 07.07.2014 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the
accused. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that my husband
gave Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused and he is liable to pay the same. It is
not true to say that I am deposing false that accused has issued cheque for
payment of said amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false that cheque is given against legal liability. It is true to say
that I have not given instructions and issue demand notice to the accused.
-- 3 of 5 --
12 C.C.No.317/SS/2018
Exh.35
I do not know whether accused has replied to the notice. I do not know
whether my deceased husband had received or not the notice reply.
17. It is not true to say that my husband used to lend money on
interest to the public. It is not true to say that my deceased husband was
indulged in illegal activities. It is not true to say that therefore, several
persons used to visit our home for demanding money. It is not true to say
that accused had given blank signed cheque. It is not true to say that my
husband had obtained said blank cheque from the accused in order to
show the same to his lenders. It is not true to say that my husband has
misused said cheque without returning it back to the accused. It is not true
to say that I am deposing false. It is not true to say that I am deposing
false to extort money from the accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 09.04.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 5 --
13 C.C.No.317/SS/2018
Exh.35
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file evidence are same, word to word as per the
original evidence.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 09.04.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 09.04.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 09.04.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 09.04.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --