Whether a Conditional Statement Not to Pursue a Trespass Complaint Constitutes a Withdrawal of Complaint, and Whether a Defendant May Prove the True Amount of a Loan Contrary to the Sum Stated in a Written Agreement

According to the facts appearing from the investigation file, Mr. Daeng unlawfully entered upon the land of Mr. Dam. Mr. Dam then went to report the matter to Mr. Khao, the village headman. When Mr. Khao came and admonished Mr. Daeng to cease his conduct, Mr. Daeng retreated. Thereafter, Mr. Dam told Mr. Khao that, once the trespass had stopped, he would not pursue the matter any further.

However, two months later, Mr. Daeng again trespassed upon Mr. Dam’s rice field. Mr. Dam then reported the matter once more to Mr. Khao, the village headman. Upon consideration of the investigation file, the public prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings against Mr. Daeng. The question is: if you were the court, how would you render judgment?

The correct legal conclusion is that Mr. Dam’s statement that he would “not pursue the matter” once the trespass had ceased did not amount to a formal withdrawal of the complaint. Such statement should be interpreted merely as a temporary suspension of the matter, contingent upon the cessation of the wrongful conduct, and not as an unequivocal abandonment of his right to proceed.

In criminal procedure, particularly in offences requiring a complaint from the injured party, a withdrawal of complaint must be clear, intentional, and legally effective. A mere statement expressing a willingness not to proceed, provided that the offender discontinues the misconduct, is not the same as a legal withdrawal. It is, in substance, no more than a provisional forbearance or suspension. Therefore, when the accused later commits the same trespass again, the earlier conditional tolerance cannot be construed as extinguishing the injured party’s right to seek criminal prosecution.

Accordingly, the court should continue with the trial and render judgment in accordance with the merits of the case. In other words, the proceedings are not barred on the ground that the complaint had been withdrawn, because no valid withdrawal ever took place.

Legal principle:
A statement by the injured party to the effect that, if the accused stops the trespass, he will “let the matter go,” does not constitute a withdrawal of the criminal complaint. It is only a temporary suspension of the matter. Hence, the court retains jurisdiction to proceed with the case and to decide it according to the evidence and the law.

---

2) Loan Agreement Case: Whether the Defendant May Adduce Oral Evidence That the Actual Loan Was Less Than the Amount Stated in the Written Instrument

In another case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant executed a loan agreement in the amount of 10,000 baht. The defendant admitted that he had indeed signed the loan agreement. However, the defendant asserted that, because he had no security to offer, the plaintiff required him to sign a document showing a loan amount of 10,000 baht, whereas in truth he had borrowed only 2,000 baht from the plaintiff.

The issue is whether the defendant may adduce evidence in support of this allegation, namely, that although the written agreement states 10,000 baht, the amount actually advanced was only 2,000 baht.

The answer is yes. The defendant may adduce such evidence.

The rationale is that the defendant’s proposed evidence is not being offered to deny the existence of any debt whatsoever, nor is it evidence intended to show that no legal relationship ever existed between the parties. On the contrary, the defendant admits that there was in fact a loan transaction. His evidence goes only to the true basis and extent of the indebtedness—that is, to the real amount for which he is liable under the underlying transaction.

Therefore, this is not regarded as evidence contradicting the written instrument in the sense prohibited by procedural rules relating to documentary evidence. Rather, it is evidence concerning the origin, nature, and actual amount of the obligation. Since the defendant is not denying the existence of the debt, but only contesting the quantum stated in the instrument as not reflecting the true sum lent, he is entitled to call oral witnesses or other evidence to establish the real amount of the loan.

Put differently, the evidence is admissible because it is directed to showing what debt truly arose from the transaction, not to asserting that no debt existed at all. The legal significance lies in distinguishing between:

1. A denial of the juristic act or debt itself, which may be restricted where a written document exists; and
2. A challenge to the true amount or factual basis of liability, which may be proved by witness testimony.

Accordingly, the defendant is legally entitled to adduce oral evidence to prove that the actual loan was only 2,000 baht, notwithstanding that the written loan document recites 10,000 baht.

Legal principle:
Where the defendant admits the execution of a written loan agreement but contends that the actual amount advanced was less than the amount stated in the document, evidence tendered to prove the true amount of the underlying debt is admissible. Such evidence is not deemed to be a denial of the debt itself, but rather proof of the real extent of liability under the transaction.

---

In the first matter, the injured party’s statement that he would not “take the matter further” if the trespass ceased did not constitute a legal withdrawal of complaint. It was merely a conditional and temporary suspension of action. When the accused later trespassed again, the right to prosecute remained intact. The court should therefore proceed with the case and determine it on the merits.

In the second matter, although the defendant signed a written loan agreement for 10,000 baht, he may still adduce oral evidence that only 2,000 baht was actually lent. This is because such evidence does not deny the existence of the loan transaction, but instead seeks to establish the true basis and amount of the debt. It is therefore admissible.

---