Dismissed

Madhu v. Shyamlal

Madhya Pradesh HC2 Sept 2016MCRC/950/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a magistrate's refusal to summon a bank manager under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court held that account details could be obtained via the Right to Information Act and Bankers' Books Evidence Act, negating the need to call the manager. The complaint's admission that the account status was unknown remained valid for the case

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order.

Madhu Vs Shyamlal — Banking and Recovery | Madhya Pradesh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE BEFORE HON. SHRI JUSTICE ALOK VERMA,J.

¶3

M.Cr.C. No.950/2016

¶4

Madhu W/o Kishore Ahuja

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shyamlal S/o Prakashchand Dhanwani

¶7

Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

(Passed on 02/09/2016)

¶10

This application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.8055/2014 dated 26.10.2015 whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

¶11

2. According to the applicant, the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque No.141828 for Rs.6 lacs. During the examination of the complainant, he admitted that he was not knowing whether the account of which the cheque belonged was live on the date of cheque which was issued on 01.07.2013. The

¶12

¶13

application was filed by the present applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to call the Bank Manager of United Bank of India, Khatiwal Tank, Indore to prove whether the account was live or dead on 01.07.2013.

¶14

3. The application was opposed by the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that whether the account was live or dead on the date of issuance of cheque was irrelevant.

¶15

4. The Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the applicant could have obtained the necessary documents under the provisions of Right to Information Act and for this purpose, the Bank Manager, need not to be called.

¶16

5. I have gone through the impugned order and other relevant documents produced by the applicant. It was only during the cross examination, the complainant expressed his ignorance about the facts whether the account was live or closed when the cheque in question was purported to have been issued. The complainant cannot take advantage of any facts emerging during the cross-examination. If his defence is that the account was not in operation at the relevant time, then this fact can be proved by obtaining account details of the relevant time and for this purpose, if the copy is certified, then Bank Manager need not be called before the Court. On this point S.2(8)(9), S.4 and S.5 of the

¶17

¶18

Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1891 may be referred to. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, no interference is called for in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The order does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality, and therefore, this application is devoid of any force and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.

¶19

( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE

¶20

Kafeel

Madhu v. Shyamlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu v. Shyamlal

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