Order 4

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 10 1005/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.6
Date : 21.10.2024
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination on oath of PW-01 Ruchita Kulpe by Advocate
Shri. Anil Gajare for the accused :
16. It is not true to say that I have not produced any document to show
that accused is owner of Balaji Construction. Accused has given me 5
cheques of Balaji Constructions. Now I am shown cheques at Exh.22 to 25.
The cheques are of the account of Balaji Construction given by the accused.
17. In the year 2015 I was serving in a office of construction company. At
that time I was receiving monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Approximately
Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- per month I used to save out of my salary. My husband
was also earning income. I do not remember whether I obtained or not any
housing loan in the year 2015. I can tell where was the office of accused in
the year 2015. His office was situated at Krishna Nagar, Borivali (E). It is
true to say that I have not produced any document to show that the cheque
of Rs.3 lakhs was given towards booking amount of the flat. It is true to say
that I have not produced any document to show that I made payment of
Rs.1,80,000/- to accused through RTGS mode. It is not true to say that I
gave Rs.20 lakhs in cash to the accused. We had not obtained any loan over
the flat purchased at Virar. It is not true to say that I have not produced any
document to show that on 07.11.2015 Rs.17,59,000/- was credited in my
bank account. I have produced my passbook of the bank account. It is true
to say that the allotment letter dated 13.11.2015 Exh.18 is not printed on
the letter head of the accused. It is true to say that there is no seal of Balaji
Construction on said letter. The letter was given by accused to me. It is not
true to say that the signature above name Vipul V. Shirduk is bogus
signature. It is not true to say that the signature is not of the accused. It is
true to say that there is no other documentary evidence except my oral
-- 1 of 4 --
11 1005/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.6
evidence to show that I requested the accused in the month of January 2016
to execute an Agreement for Sale of said flat. Accused has not informed me
in writing about the difficulties to obtain permission from various
authorities in the month of February, 2016. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false that in the month of May 2016 I visited the building site and
made inquiry with the residence and revealed that accused is not the owner
of said building and he has nothing to do with said building and re-
development. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that accused
assured me to refund the amount within three months as stated by me in
paragraph No.11 of my evidence affidavit. It is true to say that the
signatures over cheques Exh.22 to 25 are different than the signatures on
the cheques Exh.29 and 30. I have not made inquiry as to the difference of
signatures over the case. It is true to say that accused has paid me till date
Rs.13 lakhs out of cheque amount of Rs.18 lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs is
outstanding.
18. It is not true to say that I have sent the statutory notice Exh.33 on the
wrong address of the accused. It is not true to say that the notice was not
received by the accused. I have produced the Registered Post
Acknowledgment. I can not tell whether the signature on Exh.35 does not
belong to accused. I have not verified the Aadhar Card of the accused for
confirming his address. I have not executed Agreement for Sale with the
accused.
19. It is not true to say that the receipts produced by me are bogus
receipts. It is true to say that there is no signatures of the witnesses at
Exh.16 and 17. Now I am shown the cheque return memo Exh.31 and 32. It
is not true to say that both cheque return memos are not original. It is true
to say that there is no seal of the bank and signature of the bank officer. It is
not true to say that accused is not liable to make payment to me. It is not
-- 2 of 4 --
12 1005/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.6
true to say that I have filed false complaint against the accused. Iit the
cheque worth Rs.1,80,000/- is realized in the account of Mr. Vilas Shidruk.
He is father of the accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 21.10.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Date : 04.07.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination on oath of PW-01 Ruchita Kulpe by Advocate
Shri. Anil Gajare for the accused after recalling witness :
20. I am submitting Nil Income Tax Returns. I do not know whether I
have informed the amount of Rs.18 lakhs given to the accused to the Income
Tax Authority by way of my Income Tax Returns. It is not true to say that I
have not paid Rs.18 lakhs to the accused. It is not true to say that Rs.18
lakhs was not credited to the account of accused. It is not true to say that
accused therefore, not liable to repay me Rs.18 lakhs. It is not true to say
that I have filed false and wrong case against the accused for Rs.18 lakhs. It
is not true to say that accused had given two blank singed cheques towards
security. Accused has given all the cheques duly filled in. It is not true to say
that I have filled the contents of the cheques. It is not true to say that on the
date of depositing cheques accused was not liable to pay me said amount. It
is not true to say that I have filed false case against accused misusing his
-- 3 of 4 --
13 1005/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.6
blank cheques.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 04.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 4 --