Dismissed

Duni Chand v. Indian Bank

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2021CRMMO/596/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging orders that rejected an accused's request for handwriting expert opinion in a cheque dishonour case. The Court held the petition was not maintainable due to lack of specific cross-examination suggesting forgery.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to order handwriting comparison was dismissed as not maintainable.

Duni Chand Vs Indian Bank — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA CRIMINAL MISC. PETITON (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No.596 of 2019

¶5

Between:-

¶6

DUNI CHAND, SON OF SHRI DUTT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHOUR, P.O. REUR, TEHSIL SADAR (SUBTEHSIL, REWALSAR), DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶7

…. PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SHRI G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

INDIAN BANK, BRANCH SAULI KHUD, MANDI, H.P., THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER/PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SH. TEJ SINGH THAKUR, GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF BANK.

¶11

…. RESPONDENT

¶12

(SHRI H.S. RANGRA.)

¶13

RESERVED ON: 15.9.2021 DECIDED ON : 16.9.2021

¶14

¶15

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the

¶16

following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Complaint	Order dated 6.11.2018, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1., Mandi District
No.17-III/18/14	Mandi, H.P.
Cr. Revision	Order dated 16.8.2019, passed by Additional Sessions
No.2/2019	Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

¶19

Challenging the above captioned orders, declining the request to send

¶20

the cheque for handwriting expert, the accused has come up before this Court.

¶21

The accused is facing prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque amounting to Rs.21,00,000/-(Ex.CW1/E) handed over by the petitioner to the Indian Bank, was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The bank lodged prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.

¶22

During the pendency of trial, the accused filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act for sending the cheque for expert opinion for comparison of his handwriting and comparison of his signatures. The accused took specific ground that the cheque did not bear his signatures.

¶23

The petitioner has annexed the copy of prosecution witness, CW-1 Tej Singh Thakur, who was the Manager of Indian Bank. His cross-examination which took place on 8.3.2008 reveals that a specific question was put on behalf of the accused that the bank had obtained blank cheques before issuing loan. The accused did not put the question by stating that such blank cheques

¶24

¶25

were not signed. There was no occasion for the bank to obtain blank cheques without signatures. Even if, the bank had received blank cheques, there was no occasion for the bank to have them without signatures of the accused on it. Thus, at the time of cross-examination of the Manager of Indian Bank, the accused did not cross-examine specifically that the bank officials had forged his signatures on it.

¶26

Given this kind of cross-examination, there is no justification for the accused to ask for expert opinion regarding the accused’s signature on the said cheques.

¶27

I have also gone through the impugned orders, in which one of the factors which weighed with both the Courts was that it was delay tactics. Both the impugned orders are well reasoned and call for non interference.

¶28

Be that as it may, given the limited cross-examination and the absence of material suggestions to the Bank Manager, this petition is not maintainable. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶29

Since this matter is very old, as such, this Court requests the trial Court to expedite the trial. Registry to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, are also closed.

¶31

Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶32

September 16, 2021 ( ks ).

Duni Chand v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duni Chand v. Indian Bank

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

Baldev Singh Patyal Vs Ms Jai Bharat Furniture House Udyog

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Hp

Frank Oboh Vs State of Hp

Satya Pal and Others Vs State of Hp

Parkasho Devi and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Preeti Vs State of Hp and Others