IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29435-2022
Resham Hiru Chellaram
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & ors.
… Respondents
I N D E X
S.No Particulars Date Page C.Fee
1. Urgent Form 24.07.2023 A
2. Reply of Resp. No. 2&3 24.07.2023 1-6
3. Affidavit 24.07.2023 7-8
4. ANNEXURE R-1(WhatsApp 2019-20 9-50
Screenshot)
5. Power of Attorney 24.07.2023 51
Total Court Fees
Note: Any other connected case Pending or Decided: NIL
Any ex/sitting MP/MLA involved in the case: NIL
Main Case is pending for 29.07.2023.
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 24.07.2023 (ATUL GOYAL)&(MANISHA GOYAL)
P/2528/2010 P/2606/2010
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2&3
1
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29435-2022
Resham Hiru Chellaram
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & ors.
… Respondents
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.2&3.
Respectfully Showeth:
Preliminary Objections:
1. That the answering Respondent has gone through
the contents of petition and, at the outset, deny
all the averments made in the same, save and
except those specifically admitted hereinafter.
Any fact or averment in the petition, which is
not specifically traversed hereinafter, may be
treated as specifically denied.
2. That the petition is wholly misconceived and a
blatant attempt to overreach the process of this
Hon’ble Court. The petitioner has not approached
this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has made
blatant misrepresentations, therefore the
2
petition needs to be dismissed on this ground
only. Viewed in this context, the following
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath,
AIR 1994 S.C.853”, are squarely attracted:-
“The Courts of law are meant for
imparting justice between the
parties. One who comes to the court,
must come with clean hands. It can
be said without hesitation that a
person whose case is based on
falsehood has no right to approach
the court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the
litigation. A litigant, who
approaches the court, is bound to
produce all the documents executed
by him, which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withholds a vital
document in order to gain advantage
on the other side then he would be
guilty of playing fraud on the court
as well as on the opposite party.”
3. That answering respondent clearly objects to the
material concealments made by the present
petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. In-fact it
is nowhere the finding of the police that
3
respondent ever caused any injury upon the
petitioner no.1 or petitioner no.2 and on the
contrary petitioner is hell bent on harassing the
respondent on one ground or the other.
Para Wise Reply:
The para wise reply is as under:-
1. The contents of Para no. 1 need no reply.
2. That the contents of para no.2 are admitted to
the extent that material was purchased from the
respondent and in order to discharge the legal
liability, the cheque in question was issued which
got dishonored and ultimately the present
complaint was filed under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, when the payment was
not made despite sending a legal notice.
3. That the contents of para no.3 are denied as wrong
and in-correct. In-fact after considering all the
requisites, the Ld. Trial Court has summoned the
accused to face trial vide summoning order dated
07.05.2021.
4. That the contents of para no.4 are denied as wrong
and in-correct. Moreover the plea that cheque in
question has been signed by the petitioner or not,
cannot be looked into by this Hon’ble Court at
this stage, as the same is a matter of evidence
and trial.
4
5. That the contents of para no.5 are denied as wrong
and incorrect. Petitioner had been dealing with
respondent since long and until the year 2020
petitioner remained in constant touch with
respondent for his balance payment.
6. That the contents of para no.6 are denied as wrong
and in-correct. In-fact it is a mere eye wash just
to cheat and harass the innocent business man like
respondent. Moreover once again it is a matter of
evidence which is yet to established by leading
evidence before the Hon’ble Court.
7. That the contents of para no.7 are also denied as
wrong and incorrect. That on one hand petitioner
is refusing to have any dealings with respondent
post her alleged resignation, whereas petitioner
had been in constant touch with respondent over
telephonic messages. In-fact a perusal of the
conversations would reveal that on 23.06.2019
petitioner namely ‘Resham’ is stating ‘Kashish I
am going to send you the PDC in USD pls confirm
then I will issue all today only’. Then again she
stated ‘Kashish pls advise your invoice amount, I
will write 3 checks end August end September and
end October’. Upon respondent’s asking she
specifically stated ‘That’s me all co belongs to
me’. In-fact all these conversations have taken
place with son of respondent namely Kashish Jain,
5
as on 12.10.2019 she once again asked Kashish Jain
that she will send a revised payment plan and
asked him to convey to his father to not to worry.
On 04.11.2019 she specifically stated that
respondent does not trust the petitioners as
respondent has sent a legal notice. On 08.12.2019
she clearly stated that she is arranging some
amount end of next week. However on 08.01.2020
she stated that she will not talk to respondent
as respondent has filed a case against her and he
should only talk to her lawyer. Their lawyers have
specifically told her to discuss anything with
respondent anymore. She further stated that she
has a strong defence. Copy of the screen shot of
WhatsApp conversations between petitioner and
respondent’s son are being annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE R-1.
8. That the contents of para no.8 are denied as wrong
and in-correct. In-fact it is apparent that it is
petitioner who has been managing the entire
affairs and now she is trying to play hide and
seek with the Court.
9. That the contents of para no.9 are denied as wrong
and in-correct. It is again being reiterated that
the defence raised herein is purely a matter of
evidence and cannot be appreciated in the
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6
10. That the contents of para no.10 are denied as
wrong and in-correct. It is a perfectly valid
legal instrument and upon presentation in India,
the same was dishonored, and accordingly legal
notice was sent, pursuant to which no payment was
made, hence the provisions of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 would apply as the offence
has taken place within the territory of India.
11. That the contents of para no.11 are denied as
wrong and in-correct. Petitioner is completely
liable for the offence.
12. That the contents of para no.12 are matter of
record.
It is therefore respectfully prayed that the
present petition may kindly be dismissed, in the
interest of equity and justice.
It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly exempt the respondent from filing the
certified copy of Annexure R-1 and may further kindly
permit to place on record the true typed/photostat
copy of the same in the interest of equity and
justice.
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 24.07.2023 (ATUL GOYAL)&(MANISHA GOYAL)
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2&3
7
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29435-2022
Resham Hiru Chellaram
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & ors.
… Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF AMIT JAIN ROPRIETOR
M/S ADINATH KNIT PLOT NO. E-
14/1379, INDUSTRIAL ZONE, DYEING
COMPLEX, BAHADUR-KE-ROAD, LUDHIANA.
I, THE ABOVE NAMED DEPONENT DO HEREBY
SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER: -
1. That the above named deponent has filed the
present reply in this Hon’ble Court, which is very
necessary for the proper adjudication of the
matter in hand. The contents of the reply may
kindly be read as a part of the present affidavit.
2. That the contents of the preliminary objection of
the reply have been read over to the deponent and
8
the same have been understood by him and the same
are true and correct.
3. That the contents of the paras of the reply are
true and correct to the knowledge and belief of
the deponent. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been kept concealed therein.
4. That the deponent has not filed any such or
similar petition either in this Hon’ble Court or
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 24.07.2023 DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-Verified that the contents of para Nos.1
to 4 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been kept concealed therein.
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 24.07.2023 DEPONENT
ANNEXURE R-1 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
