Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: Case No.568/SS/2021.
C.W. No.1.
Exh.17.
-10-
Cross-examination resumed on:-
19. I have not seen any document which show that, M/s. S.P.
Realtake is the proprietorship concerned from 2013 till this date. It is
true to say that, I have not seen the document that, Mr. Pralhad
Shelke is proprietor of M/s. S.P. Realtake. It is not true to say that, Mr.
Pralhad Shelke is not the proprietor of M/s. S.P. Realtake. It is not
true to say that, M/s. S.P. Realtake proprietorship is not in existence.
20. It is true to say that, in the year 2013 I was in the need of
residential house and I had contacted to one Tirupati Balaji Builders
and Developers situated at New Panvel. It is true to say that, all the
transactions concerning the said house were between me and the said
Tirupati Balaji Builders. I had paid Rs.1,92,200/- to Tirupati Balaji
Builders in order to purchase the house. It is true to say that, the
concerned builder issued the receipt in favour of me. Now, Exh.19
and 20 are shown to me. Both receipts are the same. These receipts
are provided to me by Tirupati Balaji Builders and Developers. It is
true to say that, I have not mentioned the consideration amount of
the house in the complaint as well as in my affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief. It is true to say that, accused was not present at
the time of alleged transaction. It is true to say that, the concerned
builder neither handed over the house to me nor he repaid the
earnest amount I had given to the said builder. It is not true to say
that, I have lodged a criminal complaint against Tirupati Balaji
Builders and Developers. It is true to say that, at the time of arrest of
Tirupati Balaji Builders and Developers there was no contract
between the accused and the said builder that the accused will hand
-- 1 of 2 --
Case No.568/SS/2021.
C.W. No.1.
Exh.17.
-11-
over the possession of house or to repay the earnest amount. It is true
to say that, I have not filed any document which shows that, the
accused will hand over the possession of house to me.
21. The accused delivered the disputed cheques to me on
14.06.2021. It is not true to say that, there is no contents on the both
disputed cheques except the date and sign. It is not true to say that, I
am unable to state that, in whose handwriting the contents of
disputes cheques were filled up. It is not true to say that, the
handwriting appeared on both disputed cheques is not the
handwriting of accused.
22. It is true to say that, I have not filed the cheque deposit slip
along with the complaint. It is not true to say that, I have not
deposited the disputed cheques in the concerned bank. It is not true
to say that, the accused had not received the notice issued by me.
23. It is true to say that, no transaction took place between me
and the accused. It is not true to say that, the accused is not liable to
be paid the earnest amount to me. It is not true to say that, the
accused is not liable to pay the cheques amount. It is not true to say
that, I have lodged false complaint.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination. R.O.A.C.
Sd/-
(B.S. Sankpal)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
Date : 03.08.2026 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
SBA/-
-- 2 of 2 --