Interim Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 8 C.C.No.1063/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
8. 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 : 29.08.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01 Mrs. Yogini Mohan Nikam by advocate
Satyendra Sharma for the accused :
9. It is true to say that I had no personal source of income.
I am getting monthly maintenance from my husband. I am getting
Rs.20,000/- per month since year 2021. It is not true to say that in the
year 2018 my husband was not paying any amount in lieu of
permanent alimony to me. I have one daughter. It is not true to say that
in the year 2018 I had no source of income. It is not true to say that my
husband was not paying maintenance to me in the year 2018. I can not
tell my monthly expenses for the year 2018. I can not tell the amount
of monthly saving in the year 2018. It is true to say that in the year
2018 I had no financial capacity to pay huge amount to anybody on
hand loan.
10. It is not true to say that I was not knowing accused prior
to the transaction. It is not true to say that I was not aware about the
address of the room in respect of which the accused had to return the
security deposit. It is true to say that it is not mentioned in my notice,
complaint and affidavit as to on which date I gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the
accused. It is true to say that it is not mentioned in my notice,
complaint and affidavit as to in whose presence I paid Rs.2,00,000/-
and at what place I paid it to the accused. I had not withdrawn the cash
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from any bank account. My friend had given
-- 1 of 6 --
9 C.C.No.1063/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
me Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. I can tell name of my said friend. Her name
is Zainab Gagan. She gave me said amount in cash. It is not true to say
that there is no documentary proof of giving Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to
me by Zainab Gagan. I can produce the documentary proof on next
date. I do not recollect the dates on which I paid the rest of the amount
than Rs.2,00,000/- totalling to Rs.6,00,000/-. It is not true to say that I
do not possess any documentary evidence to show parting of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. Zainab Gagan paid me totally
Rs.3,50,000/-. My mother gave me Rs.1,50,000/-. My brother gave me
Rs.1,00,000/-. It is true to say that my mother is a housewife. My
mother had given me Rs.1,50,000/- pledging her ornaments. I can not
tell whether I can produce or not the receipt of pledging ornaments to
the Jwellers. It is not true to say that above three persons had not
given me any amount. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that
my mother, brother and friend Zainab Gagan gave me the amount of
Rs.6,00,000/-.
11. The amount of Rs.6,00,000/- given on friendly loan was
to be repaid by the accused by the end of March 2018. Initially I did not
obtain Aadhar Card or security cheques from the accused while parting
the hand loan. Later on when accused failed to pay the amount to me
on 31.03.2018, I demanded cheque from the accused. Accused gave me
only present cheque. It is not true to say that I had obtained 10 blank
cheques only with signatures of accused from her. Interest was not to
be paid nor any such discussion had happened as it was friendly loan. It
is not true to say that the cheque Exh.16 now shown to me was blank
cheque only with signature of the accused. It is not true to say that the
document of undertaking Exh.17 was also the blank paper with
signature of the accused. It is not true to say that I obtained both these
-- 2 of 6 --
10 C.C.No.1063/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
documents of Exh.16 and 17 from the accused towards security of
transaction before giving the hand loan. It is not true to say that the
hand writing pertaining to the name of payee, amount and date of
cheque Exh.16 do not belongs to accused. It is not true to say that I
falsely prepared forged document of undertaking Exh.17 by typing and
printing the contents of the same later on above the signature of the
accused. It is not true to say that I did not give any amount of hand
loan to the accused after getting the documents Exh.16 and 17 from
the accused. It is not true to say that I misused said documents.
12. At present I am maintaining bank accounts in total four
banks. I am submitting income tax return since last two-three years. It
is true to say that I have not shown the transaction of hand loan in my
income tax returns. The same is not shown as the money is given as a
friendly loan. Except accused I had also given friend loan to one more
friend named Mumtaj Saiyyad. The advocate for accused put question
in respect of Mumtaj Saiyyad as to the amount of hand loan given to
her. Question rejected as no relevant and related to present case. The
advocate for accused warned not to put questions related to any
transaction with Mumtaj Saiyyad in her absence and without authority.
Cross examination is deferred as recess time and the witness has
to attend the family court till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 29.08.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 3 of 6 --
11 C.C.No.1063/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
Date : 20.01.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further Cross examination of CW-01 Mrs. Yogini Mohan Nikam by
advocate Mr. S. R. Sharma for the accused :
13. Accused had given her room on Leave and Licence at
Amirbakshi Dodhwala Chawl. It is not true to say that I had not
personally gone to see said room. It is not true to say that in the year
2016 the chawl containing said room was demolished for re-
development. The room is still in existence. It is not true to say that I
have deposed false that accused had rented her room on heavy deposit.
It is not true to say that I do not have any documentary evidence with
me to show that I obtained money from several persons in order to give
it to the accused. I can produce it on next date. It is not true to say that
I am deposing false that my mother and brother gave me money.
14. It is true to say that I have sent statutory notice to the
accused at her two addresses. I can tell on 26.04.2018 where the
accused was residing. Accused was residing at her address of room
No.904 Alshifha Apartment, Pipe Road, Kurla West Mumbai. It is not
true to say that the accused was not residing at said address in the year
2018. now I am shown the two acknowledgment cards produced by me
collectively at Exh.21. It is true to say that both the signatures on
acknowledgment card Exh.21(1) and Exh.21(2) does not belong to
accused. It is not true to say that accused was not residing on both
addresses. It is not true to say that therefore, a notice is not received by
the accused and received somebody else. The signature may be of
husband of accused named Akaram. It is not true to say that the
demand notice Exh.19 is not received by the accused. It is not true to
-- 4 of 6 --
12 C.C.No.1063/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
say that as she did not get the demand notice, she had not replied it.
15. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that accused was
given Rs.6 lakhs towards friendly loan. It is not true to say that in order
to extort more money, I deposited the blank signed cheque of the
accused with larger amount and misused it. It is not true to say that
accused is not liable to pay me Rs.6 lakhs. It is not true to say that I
have filed false case against the accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination. R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 20.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 5 of 6 --
13 C.C.No.1063/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
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 : 20.01.2025.
Typed on : 20.01.2025.
Evidence printed and Signed on : 20.01.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 20.01.2025.
-- 6 of 6 --