Quashed

Sudeep Alok Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./20/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Article 226, the High Court of Jharkhand entertained the petitioner's challenge to orders dismissing a revision under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the examination of the signatures of prosecution witnesses by a Handwriting Expert, directing the petitioner to deposit the required costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 10.12.2019 and 15.05.2019 were quashed. The petitioner was directed to deposit the cost of the Handwriting Expert to enable the trial court to examine the signatures of PWs 2

Sudeep Alok Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 20 of 2020

¶3

Sudeep Alok Minz @ Sudip Alok Minz, aged about 34 years, son of Late Saihun Minz, resident of Saldega, Dipatoli, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, DistrictSimdega … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. -----

¶8

06/20.10.2021. Heard Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State.

¶9

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Cr. Revision No.09 of 2019, whereby, the said criminal revision filed against the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Cr. Misc. Appl. No.74 of 2019, arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 71 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 276 of 2016, has been dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire case is evolved upon the forged signature, as has been stated by P.W.2 and P.W.4 that they have not signed upon the cheques and upon their forged signatures the amount in question has been withdrawn. He further submits that in the interest of justice and at the cost of the petitioner, the signatures of P.W.2 and P.W.4 may be directed to be examined by the Handwriting Expert, within framed time limit.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. for the State refers to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, which has been annexed with the petition and submits that in view of their statements that the signatures of P.W.2 and P.W.4 are not there, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

-2-

¶14

The Court has perused the evidence of P.W.2 annexed with the petition. In paragraph 20, she has stated that on the cheque, her signature is not there and she is ready to get her signature examined by the Handwriting Expert. P.W.4 has also stated in the same way in paragraph 9.

¶15

In view of the above facts and in the interest of justice and also considering that entire case is based upon forged signature on the cheque and in view of the statements of both the P.Ws., it is desirable that the signatures of P.W.2 and P.W.4 will be examined by the Handwriting Expert within framed time. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Cr. Revision No.09 of 2019 as well as the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Cr. Misc. Appl. No.74 of 2019, arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 71 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 276 of 2016 are, hereby, quashed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Handwriting Expert before the concerned court by 17.11.2021. On deposition of such cost, the trial court shall take steps for the report of Handwriting Expert with regard to signatures of P.W.2 and P.W.4 immediately. This exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of deposit of such amount.

¶16

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court by FAX at the cost of the petitioner.

¶18

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶19

Ajay/

Sudeep Alok Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeep Alok Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Geeta Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karnataka Antibiotic And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Thr Its Md Sri Krishna Mohan Prasad And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shankar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satrughan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand