The High Court dismissed a petition under S.482 CrPC seeking to quash an order closing the petitioner-accused's evidence. The court held that no illegality existed as the accused had failed to honor an undertaking to pay the cheque amount.
Petition for quashal of order closing evidence dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CrMMO No. 744 of 2019 Decided on: December 16, 2019
______________________________________________________________ Kuldeep Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Yash Pal Singh …Respondent ______________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1 ? ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused to quash and set aside order dated 27.9.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, whereby evidence of the accused has been ordered to be closed.
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
learned Court below that he would pay the entire cheque amount within a period of two months. Record further reveals that despite repeated opportunities, accused failed to pay the amount, as such, non-bailable warrants came to be issued against him. Though the accused claimed before learned Court below that some amicable settlement stands arrived inter se him and the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) vide an agreement but such agreement never came to be placed on record. Leaving everything aside, it is not in dispute that the accused himself undertook before learned Court below on 28.3.2017 that he would pay entire cheque amount within a period of two months, as such, no fault, if any, can be found with the order passed by learned Court below, whereby it has proceeded to close the evidence of the accused. Since liability, if any, on the part of the accused stands admitted by way of undertaking given to the Court, there was no occasion for learned Court below to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead evidence in his defence.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge
December 16, 2019 (Vikrant)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under S.482 CrPC to quash the order closing evidence of the accused in a cheque bounce case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuldeep Singh
Yash Pal Singh
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
