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