The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of a request for a C.F.S.L. report regarding the age of handwriting on a cheque. The court held the prayer was irrelevant as the signature was not denied.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7289 of 2023
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Ram Bahadur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
also cross-examined, accused-applicant filed two applications before court below. By means of the first application filed by applicant, it was prayed by accused-applicant that CFSL report be obtained from expert regarding the age of writing on the disputed cheque. The second application was filed by accusedapplicant with the prayer that the details of issuance of cheque book from leaf Nos. 332761 to 332780 and the subsequent cheque books be obtained and the concerned officer be directed to appear before court along with the record regarding incorporation of M/s Koa Tools India Limited and the subsequent change in it's name.
case was fled in the year, 2014. In order to prove that the complaint case is false and in order to have a fair trial, the application be allowed. Reliance was placed upon the following two judgements:-
(1). T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Murlidhar (2008) 5 SCC 633.
(2). Criminal Writ Petition No. 1010 of 2014 (Brij Ratan Vs. Vidarbha Nagrik Pat Sansthan) decided on 03.03.2015 by the Bombay High Court.
courts below have concurrently held that the prayer made by accused applicant by means of the first application was wholly misconceived inasmuch as same is alien to the oral testimony of accused-applicant and the suggestions put to CW-1, complainant. Moreover, once the signature itself has not been disputed the age of the hand writing on the disputed cheque becomes irrelevant. There is nothing on record to show that there is no legally chargeable debt against accused-applicant either.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023 Vinay
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the lower court orders rejecting an application for a forensic report on the age of handwriting on a disputed cheque.
Whether a rejection of the application for expert evidence on handwriting age amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial when the signature is not disputed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. MurlidharReferred¶15
T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Murlidhar (2008) 5 SCC 633 · Who else cites this
Brij Ratan Vs. Vidarbha Nagrik Pat SansthanReferred¶16
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1010 of 2014 (Brij Ratan Vs. Vidarbha Nagrik Pat Sansthan)
Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh KumarRelied on¶21
Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Kumar Sharma
State Of U.P.
State Of U.P.
Vinay Kumar
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
