• False cheque bounce case by financier

I had a business & during times of financial crisis had had borrowed Rs. 10,00,000/- from a lady financier, who had taKen 5 blanK cheques of mine & she had given it to me @ 10% interest. & even after me clearing the entire amount with interest total amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/-, she did not return Ma blanK cheques bacK. Also I did not Know it would cause such a big problem to me. Now after clearing the above said amount, she came back to me claiming I need to pay her Rs. 3,50,000/- more & when I did not agree for it, she said that she Knows what to do with Ma cheques & also she had told us that she would present Ma cheque & when it returns, she said, she will lodge a case against me.
Now, I had to incur a huge loss, & after which I closed down the company & now in search of a job. Now, the lady has given a complaint against me to the Human Rights President for Rs. 21,00,000/- & that person had called me & Ma Father to some office & used abusing languages & also said he would put both Ma DAD & Myself behind bars. He also would fit Ma DAD in a non bailable case. I am divorcee with a responsibility of 2 small Kids on Ma shoulder. What do I do to defend Myself?
Asked 2 years ago in Criminal Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
pls do not worry,a call from humanrightpresident has nothing to do with cheque bounce case,
as far a your 5 cheques with her is concerned ,it will not be any help to her as you already cleared her balance.if she is asking for more 3.5 there must be legal outstanding liablilty,if there is no liability then you do not have to worry,as she can only claim the amount which you are legally bound to pay
Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations
3.5 on 5.0
how have you received 10lac,all by cheque or some part by cheque and some cash,what receipts do you have that you have paid the amount you claim or have you given any receipt to the lady for the amount you have received from her,kindly explain in detail
Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations
3.5 on 5.0
When you have cleared his amount then why you are annoyed about it,let her do anything, keep proof of payment and produce before concerened Authority for discharge from liabilities.
Soumya   Kundu
Advocate, Kolkata
50 Answers
0 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
have you taken any receipts from her for the amount you have paid .when did you take this loan .
Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations
3.5 on 5.0
then how do you prove that you have made payments
Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations
3.5 on 5.0
cheques cases are very technical as regard to time frame. because every stage involves time frame. as far as your case is cocerned u have face five cases of cheque bounce cases. for brief u may call.
Avdhesh Chaudhary
Advocate, Greater Noida
565 Answers
20 Consultations
3.9 on 5.0
have you received any notice from her till now,if not then wait and discuss this after receiving notice from her,then i will be better position to advise you
Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations
3.5 on 5.0
At the outset, bear in mind that except a court of law no other authority, including the President of India, can call you insofar as this case is concerned. So you should not go again to the President of Human Rights Association if at all he calls you. The only remedy for this lady is before a court of law, and no other authority. 

She can file a case of cheque bounce against you, but you will get sufficient opportunity to contest the same through your lawyer. Do not be cowed down by threats of being implicated in any non-bailable offence. She can be jailed if she files a false case against you.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18167 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Mere fact that you paid the amount partly in cash does not lead to an inference that you have defaulted in repaying the full amount of loan along with interest. You did commit a blunder by not securing the repayment of loan through a legal document. It is always advisable to seek professional advice from a lawyer on payment of his consultancy fees before entering into and discharging a monetary liability of this nature as a lawyer would have acquainted you with the recourse by following which you could have repaid the loan and also plugged any escape route through which she may have lodged a false claim of this nature.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18167 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
As of now all can suggest to you is to engage a lawyer beforehand so that he may chalk out your defence in the event of she filing a case against you.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18167 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Dear Querist
First of all you should file a complaint against so called Human Right Commissioner before National Human Right Commission.
secondly, as you mentioned that you have paid the amount through cheque and cash and she is not ready to return you cheques then send a legal notice to her with all the detail and claim your cheques and harassment compensation too. if she is not ready to return your cheque after receiving the notice file a criminal case against her for extortion u/s 383/384 of IPC before court or police.
thirdly, if she is not licencee money lander then her case will not be strong you can fight the case on merit.
fourthly, you father have no concerned regarding this matter so nobody can file any case against your father.
Feel Free to Call
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3537 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ask the Human Rights commission president not to call you. File a police complaint against the caller as you don't know his true credentials. What is his name?i have heard of some unscrupulous elements claiming to be member/ president of Human Rights Association. 

Do not meet any one. Hire a Advocate and liaison with them only  through your Advocate. 

Only legal action they can take against you is filing check bounce case. In that event, court will sent summons. 
Usually Court/commission wont call the parties. They send summons/notice
Sandeep Hegde
Advocate, Bangalore
361 Answers
97 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 1 of 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 
Reserved on: 13th
 March, 2013 
 Pronounced on: 8
th
 April, 2013 
+ CRL.L.P. 491/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 492/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 493/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 2 of 15
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 494/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 495/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 496/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 3 of 15
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 497/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 498/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 499/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 4 of 15
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 500/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 501/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 502/2011 
  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 5 of 15
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 503/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 504/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 6 of 15
+ CRL.L.P. 505/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 506/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 507/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 7 of 15
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 508/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 509/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
+ CRL.L.P. 510/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 8 of 15
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
 
+ CRL.L.P. 511/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
 
+ CRL.L.P. 512/2011 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 9 of 15
 
+ CRL.L.P. 513/2011 
 
 
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner 
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish 
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates 
 versus 
 
 DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent 
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & 
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates 
 
 
CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL 
 
J U D G M E N T 
 
G. P. MITTAL, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The Leave Petitions be registered as Criminal Appeals 
No.461/2013 - 483/2013. 
3. These Appeals arise out of 23 separate judgments of even date whereby 
23 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881(the Act) were dismissed by the learned Metropolitan 
Magistrate(MM) primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was in the  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 10 of 15
business of advancing loan; he did not possess any money lending licence 
and thus the complaint was barred under Section 3 of the Punjab 
Registration of Money-lender’s Act, 1938 (the Act of 1938). The learned 
MM opined that although the cheques were issued in discharge of 
liability or debt, yet in view of the provisions of the Act of 1938, the 
debts were legally not recoverable. Thus, the learned M.M. dismissed the 
complaints and acquitted the Respondent. 
4. In the 23 complaint cases, various cheques have been issued which are 
extracted hereunder: 
 
Crl.L.P. No. Cheque No. Date of Cheque Amount(in `) 
491/2011 000048 
000047 
002375 
10.12.2008 
14.12.2008 
01.09.2008 
10,000/- 
1,00,000/- 
42,000/- 
492/2011 000001 
000002 
000003 
09.08.2008 
08.09.2008 
10.09.2008 
30,000/- 
18,000/- 
18,000/- 
493/2011 002423 
007582 
120184 
24.09.2008 
24.09.2008 
26.11.2008 
44,000/- 
24,000/- 
6,667/- 
494/2011 000032 
000050 
14.11.2008 
26.12.2008 
7,500/- 
10,000/- 
495/2011 121334 06.01.2009 10,000/-  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 11 of 15
121335 
121336 
121340 
207659 
10.01.2009 
14.01.2009 
02.01.2009 
05.10.2008 
10,000/- 
10,000/- 
1,00,000/- 
26,700/- 
496/2011 000039 
000041 
000049 
08.11.2008 
02.12.2008 
18.10.2008 
1,00,000/- 
10,000/- 
10,000/- 
497/2011 000033 
000034 
000035 
000036 
21.11.2008 
28.11.2008 
11.11.2008 
26.11.2008 
7,500/- 
7,500/- 
7,500/- 
7,500/- 
498/2011 002419 16.09.2008 12,000/- 
499/2011 000044 
000045 
000046 
21.11.2008 
28.11.2008 
07.12.2008 
1,00,000/- 
1,00,000/- 
1,00,000/- 
500/2011 007583 
007584 
007585 
25.09.2008 
28.09.2008 
27.09.2008 
24,000/- 
48,000/- 
30,000/- 
501/2011 002412 
002413 
002411 
04.09.2008 
06.09.2008 
05.09.2008 
40,000/- 
40,000/- 
40,000/- 
502/2011 000007 
000008 
000009 
12.09.2008 
13.09.2008 
17.09.2008 
48,000/- 
12,000/- 
12,000/-  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 12 of 15
503/2011 207697 
207698 
007581 
15.12.2008 
25.12.2008 
26.11.2008 
10,000/- 
10,000/- 
36,000/- 
504/2011 000004 
000004 
000004 
09.09.2008 
10.09.2008 
11.09.2008 
48,000/- 
48,000/- 
36,000/- 
505/2011 000025 
000042 
000043 
03.10.2008 
07.11.2008 
14.11.2008 
7,500/- 
1,00,000/- 
1,00,000/- 
506/2011 002424 
207677 
207696 
25.09.2008 
24.10.2008 
28.12.2008 
40,000/- 
16,500/- 
10,000/- 
507/2011 000018 
000026 
000027 
000037 
28.10.2008 
11.10.2008 
20.10.2008 
20.11.2008 
7,500/- 
7,500/- 
7,500/- 
7,500/- 
508/2011 000010 
000012 
000014 
18.09.2008 
25.10.2008 
26.10.2008 
18,000/- 
11,000/- 
14,000/- 
509/2011 002418 
002422 
002420 
15.09.2008 
23.09.2008 
19.09.2008 
12,000/- 
40,000/- 
24,000/- 
510/2011 007591 
007593 
007594 
20.09.2008 
03.10.2008 
02.10.2008 
10,000/- 
40,000/- 
40,500/-  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 13 of 15
511/2011 007586 
007587 
007588 
28.09.2008 
09.09.2008 
01.10.2008 
30,000/- 
42,000/- 
30,000/- 
512/2011 000019 
000021 
000023 
30.10.2008 
03.11.2008 
08.10.2008 
30,000/- 
16,500/- 
1,00,000/- 
513/2011 007595 
216765 
216776 
008778 
01.10.2008 
04.10.2008 
11.10.2008 
26.09.2008 
40,000/- 
21,000/- 
10,500/- 
24,000/- 
 
 
5. To analyse whether the complaints under Section 138 were barred under 
the provisions of the Act, it will be apposite to extract the provisions of 
Section 3 of the Act of 1938, which reads as under: 
 
“3. Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless 
money-lender is registered and licensed. Notwithstanding 
anything contained in any other enactment for the time 
being in force, a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a 
loan, or an application by a money-lender for the execution 
of a decree relating to a loan, shall after the commencement 
of this act, be dismissed, unless the money-lender- 
(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of 
the application for execution; or 
(b) at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the 
application for execution- 
(i) is registered; and  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 14 of 15
(ii) holds a valid licence, in such form and manner as may 
be prescribed; or 
(iii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under 
section 11, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is 
instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application 
for execution is presented; or 
(iv) if he is not a registered and licensed money-lender, 
satisfies the Court that he has applied to the Collector to be 
registered and licensed and that such application is 
pending; provided that in such a case, the suit or application 
shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the 
money-lender for registration and grant of license pending 
before the Collector is finally disposed of.” 
 
6. Thus, Section 3 of the Act of 1938 starts with a non-obstante clause and 
makes the filing of any Suit or any Application for recovery of loan or 
execution of a decree relating to a loan by a money lender to be not 
maintainable unless the money lender is registered under the Act and 
possessed a licence for the same. 
7. The loan as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act of 1938 specifically 
excludes an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as 
defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, other than a promissory 
note. The instant cases relate to an advance made by the Petitioner to the 
Respondent on the basis of the cheque which admittedly is a negotiable 
instrument. Thus, the bar of Section 3 of the Act of 1938 is not attracted 
to a loan given on the basis of a negotiable instrument, like a cheque. I 
am supported in this view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in 
Gajanan & Ors. v. Seth Brindaban, 1971(1) SCR 657. Thus, the learned 
MM fell into error in dismissing the complaints and acquitting the  
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 15 of 15
Respondent solely on the ground that the complaint was barred under the 
provisions of the Act of 1938. 
8. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same are 
accordingly set aside. 
9. The cases are remanded back to the Court of MM concerned for its 
decision in accordance with law. 
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned MM concerned on 
30.04.2013. 
11. Trial Court record be returned immediately. 
12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court. 
13. Pending Applications stand disposed of. 
 
(G.P. MITTAL) 
 JUDGE 
APRIL 08, 2013
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3537 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Before she proceeds with the cheque bounce case. you file a complaint before the nearest police station that the  5 cheques have been illegally held by the financier even though I have cleared the loan amount. The police will call you and the financier to the station settle the matter.
Nagalakshmi S.
Advocate, Bangalore
16 Answers
22 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Criminal Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14138 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18167 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12131 Answers
233 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5239 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3537 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
441 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
873 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2760 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1916 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1950 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0