cheating
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 28 May 2011
This query is : Resolved
A (purchaser) paid token advance of Rs. 5 Lakh to “B” (land owners) and executed a Receipt acknowledging the said amount in a landed transaction. Subsequently the said transaction was cancelled and that “B’ is agreed to pay back the advance amount to “A”.
Accordingly at the request of “B”, “A” has sent the Original Cash Receipt through “C” (Broker). While giving the said receipt, “A” has taken an endorsement from “C” on the back side of the Xerox copy of the said receipt stating that “”C” has received the original receipt”.
“A” came to know that “B” has already paid the said amount to “C” by way of account payee check in the name of 'C'.
And when “A” questioned about the said payment, “C” has replied that he has already received the said amount and he will pay back the same within a short period of time. Even after repeated demands made by “A”, “C” has refused to pay back the same. In the mean time, “A” got issued a legal notice to B and C, but they did not give any reply or made the payment.
Can “A” file a Criminal Case against B and C.?
Plz. Suggest me.
Guest
(Expert) 28 May 2011
This is a repeated question and replied by several experts. The new question has been posted with just a small difference with the change of amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the original question, which stated one lakh only as token advance.
It seems the author of the question wants reply to his taste only, not according to the provisions of law. However, there is no bar in your filing case on both the parties, B&C, as you seem to intend.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 28 May 2011
In this case, how the B had given cheque to C. He ought to give the cheque to A only.
Just because handing over the original receipt, how C could receive a cheque in his name.
It seems the entire story is illogical.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 28 May 2011
Yes. Already we replied for this query. Even its ok.. In my view, A can't sue against C. B only responsible to repay the amount.. If the transaction between B And C is true mean B can take action against C. but A can not..
Guest
(Expert) 31 May 2011
The story itself seems to be a fake one, as at previous occasion the author came up with the story of Rs. 1 Lakh, now with 5 Lakhs. Further, the question arises, not to say of Rs. 5 Lakhs, even the other arty would neither like to pay even 1 Lakh in cash, nor by bearer cheque to a person other than the claimant. A cheque if crossed, could not be encashed by the 3rd party.
