Dismissed

Kiran Dinkar Patil v. Prashant Mahadeo Karande and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2005WP/489/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding a Section 138 trial, the High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the Magistrate's refusal to order handwriting and ink examination. The Court held that the petitioner's claim of cheque loss was an afterthought and the legality of liability must be determined by the trial court, finding no error in the lower order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected. Rule discharged. The learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by this order.

Kiran Dinkar Patil Vs Prashant Mahadeo Karande and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 489 OF 2005

¶4

 Mr. Kiran Dinkar Patil ...Petitioner

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Prashant Mahadeo Karande & Anr ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate for Petitioner

¶8

 Mr. N.D. Hambalkar, Adv. for Respondent No.2.

¶9

 Mr. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P. for State.

¶10

CORAM:SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶11

DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

¶12

P. C.:-

¶13

 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner

¶14

 i.e. original accused, learned advocate for the
 respondent No.1 i.e. original complainant and the

¶15

 learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶16

 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable
 forthwith.

¶17

 3. The petitioner is facing prosecution in case i.e.
 S.C.C. No. 1934 of 2003 which is pending before the
 J.M.F.C. Court No.2, Karad. The said case is under

¶18

 Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶19

 (-2-)

¶20

 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not
 issued the cheque in question and in fact the cheque
 was lost and the same has been misused by the
 complainant. In respect of this contention, the
 petitioner has placed reliance on the notice which he
 had issued in the newspaper stating that his bag and
 other articles including the cheque book were lost.

¶21

 5. The petitioner had preferred an application
 before the learned Magistrate (Exh.24) praying
 therein that the said cheque be sent to the hand
 writing expert as well as to other experts for
 checking the handwriting and the ink used in making
 out the cheque. The said application came to be
 rejected by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this
 petition.

¶22

 6. In the present case, it is seen that the cheque
 is dated 11.7.2003 and the complaint in respect of
 the dishonour of the said cheque was filed on
 7.10.2003. Before the complaint was filed, a notice
 had been issued to the petitioner, however, he had
 not replied to the said notice. The complaint was
 lodged on 7.10.2003, however, the application for
 forwarding the cheque to experts came to be filed
 almost a year later by the petitioner. For the first
 time, on 14.9.2004 when the application at Exh.24
 came to be filed, the petitioner came out with a case

¶23

 (-3-)

¶24

 that the cheque book had been lost and the

¶25

 complainant misused this lost cheque. This stand has
 not been taken by the petitioner at the first time
 when the notice was issued by him. This is clearly
 shows that it is an after thought on the part of the
 petitioner. Moreover, the questions whether the
 accused is under a legally enforceable liability i.e.
 whatever he owes a legally dischargeable debt are
 questions to be determined only after a full fledged
 trial. The learned Magistrate has taken this aspect
 into consideration as well as other aspects in his
 order dated 17.11.2004 whereby the application of the
 petitioner came to be rejected. I find no error in
 the said order, hence, no interference is called for.

¶26

 Writ petition is rejected. Rule discharged.

¶27

 7. The learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by
 any observations in this order while deciding the
 trial.

¶28

 *****

Kiran Dinkar Patil v. Prashant Mahadeo Karande and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Dinkar Patil v. Prashant Mahadeo Karande and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Amir Tarik Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Babasaheb Dadasaheb Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amir Tarik Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bebitai Ramling Deshmukh and Anr. Vs Karmayogi S.R. Paricharak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt. and Anr.

Ghalappa Sardar Nadgeri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Vasant Malkar Vs Sheetal Vilas Khadake and Anr.