This a peculiar case, may be the only one in India.
We have purchased business of a pvt ltd company. We (me and my friend) have paid to the owner/director from our savings bank account as our company was not formed / registered. Later our companies entered into one business purchase agreement and the other premises lease agreement. Later we paid him from the company's current account from the other bank.
After almost one and a half year passed. When i was out of station and come back to office, i found the locks of the main door were changed and the key set i have is useless. i tried to contact the gentleman (?) to no avail. As our finish products, raw material, tools, equipment, furniture, Xerox machine and typewriter (it happened in 2000, now the case is on board) and company's stationery, stamps and cash was inside, we had no other option than to lodge a police complaint. When police coerced this man, he wanted to show his innocence. He has one cheque of our savings bank account of Rs 2 Lakh was lying with him as security as he has to complete certain design files. In spite of repeated requests, he did not return that savings account cheque. He put company's stamp (which was in his illegal possession), typed date (as his handwriting can be recognised, no initials on correction of date), , and submitted to the bank. It was bounced. In fact, the lethargic bank staff should have returned it as it was from savings bank account and company did not have that account.
He filed 138 against us and offered us compromise formula, let you withdraw police complaint and we will withdraw 138. After seeing the photocopy of cheque, i realised that it is forgery. Our signatures were there, but stamp? And during the earlier year we have paid him through cheques from the company's current account, where directors and format of stamp are different. How can he accept the cheque from an old account he was aware of. He obtained anticipatory bail. He stated in that application that as there was no stamp on earlier cheques, there is no stamp on this cheque too. Earlier cheques were reflected in the agreement. And he also states in the same application in other para that the case of NI138 is in progress against my 'company' (which is clear there should be a stamp on cheque). False affidavit on oath.
Later our forgery and his 138 clubbed together and we requested Hon Court to proceed our case first as if forgery is proved, 138 will automatically be dismissed. After perusing the available evidence, Hon Court agreed. This gentleman challenged in Dist Court where our lawyer surprisingly remained absent. Order went in his favour. When his cross started in 138, he went to the US leaving cross uncompleted. His lawyers prolonged the case for more than one year. Later Hon Court 'dismissed the case in default'. And our forgery case started.
On Hon Court's order, police have collected certified copies of savings account cheques (same series and with no stamp), current account cheques (another bank, with different directors and style of stamp) given to him in the next year. His police statement, anticipatory bail application.
We have requested Hon Court to call for 138 case papers for reference which Hon Court agreed.
He submitted the original cheque in 138 case, but he obtained anti bail for this case for same cheque.
Can we refer the documents from other case as both cases are for the same cheque?
Sir, i would like to know whether there is an example where party obtains the anti bail after depositing the cheque, he claims given to him voluntarily.
And any other advise and suggestions You may deem fit.
Regards.
