Dismissed

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024A482/19902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting a request for handwriting expert examination on a cheque and bill. The court held no illegality existed as the applicant did not dispute the cheque signature and bills must be proved by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the impugned order stands dismissed; applicant free to raise arguments during trial.

Jitendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164552

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19902 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Himanshu Mishra,Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Kr. Gupta, learned counsel for the application, Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 15.5.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura as well as order dated 3.1.2024 passed by Additional Judge, Mathura and stay the further proceeding of Criminal complaint No. 1778 of 2013 ( Hari Sharan vs. Jitendra Singh Yadav ), u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that by the impugned order, the court below rejected the application of the applicant for examination of the hand writing on the cheque apart from the signature as well as the age of ink and signature of the applicant on the bills filed by the complainant. It is further submitted that by rejecting the said application, the applicant has been deprived of fair trial because the complainant prepared a forged bill just to create an affidavit showing that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of liability.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submits that trial of the case is pending since 2013 and proceeding was pending at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and application was filed by the applicant in the year 2023. It is further submitted that the applicant has not disputed his signature over the cheque in question, therefore, his application was rightly rejected by the court below.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the argument of the counsel for opposite party No.2 and further submitted that the revision against the rejection of the application of the applicant was also rejected, therefore, the present application is not maintainable once two courts had already given finding, unless there is inherent defect in the impugned order, which goes to the root of this order

¶11

itself.

¶12

After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the proceeding of this case has been pending since 2013 and proceeding under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also completed and the application was filed by the applicant in the year 2023 for examination of hand writing in the cheque as well as signature over the bill, filed by the complainant. It is also clear from the record that the applicant has not disputed the signature over the cheque in question and so far as the forged signature over the bill, filed by the complainant, is concerned, that bills has to be proved by the complainant. Therefore, there is no requirement to examine the same by the hand writing expert at the instance of the applicant. Even otherwise, at the time of passing of the impugned order, photocopy of the bills was on record, therefore, authenticity of signature over the bill cannot be examined.

¶13

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed . However, the applicant is free to raise his argument during trial.

¶14

As the case is very old one and as per the direction of the Apex Court that the cases under N.I. Act should be decided within six months, in the earlier occasion this Court has already directed to decide the impugned proceeding expeditiously. Therefore, it is expected from the court below that it will decide the impugned proceeding as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Vandana

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Chandak vs State of Up and Another

Rajkumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Shankar@ Shankar vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Yadav Alias Arvind Yadav Alias Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Ankit Brick Industry and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasim Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another