Dismissed

Salim Shaikh v. Pushpa Prakash Parmar and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2008WP/67/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a writ petition challenging a trial court order that dismissed an accused's application for handwriting expert examination as premature. The court held the application could be considered after the accused leads evidence and declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected; the trial court order dismissing the application for forensic examination was upheld.

Salim Shaikh Vs Pushpa Prakash Parmar and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 67 OF 2008

¶4

Shri Salim Shaikh: Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Smt.Pushpa Prakash Parmar

¶7

and others.: Respondents.

¶8

Mr.K.K.Waghmare for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State.

¶10

CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 28, 2008.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1.After closer of the evidence of
complainant, the case was fixed for defence
evidence. The case pertains to the dishonour of
the cheque and consequential filing of the
complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. A suggestion was given to the

¶13

¶14

complainant that the signatures on some of the
documents including the cheque are not that of
the accused. The accused moved an application
for referring the disputed signatures to the Hand
Writing Expert. The trial Court rejected the
said application by observing that at present
there is hardly any evidence to support the
defence that the signatures on the cheque and the
challan are forged signatures of the complainant.
Reading of the impugned order reveals that after
the defence leads the evidence, the request of
the accused can be considered. To put it in
other words, the application moved by the accused
for forwarding the disputed signatures to the
Hand Writing Expert has been rejected being
premature. In view of this, I do not propose to
interfere with the impugned order. However, it
shall be open to the accused to move an
application in that regard after he leads oral
evidence. The petition, thus, rejected.

¶15

[A.P.DESHPANDE,J]

Salim Shaikh v. Pushpa Prakash Parmar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Shaikh v. Pushpa Prakash Parmar and Ors.

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

Trimbak Thakaji Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Praveen Viram Satra Andanr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bipin Ratilal Mehta Vs Baliram Bapu Patil and Anr.

Amit Suryakant Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balkisan B. Maniyar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Golden Bin (Restaurant and Bar) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.