Dismissed

Baishnab Behura v. Arjun Majhi

Orissa HC23 Aug 2016CRLMC/2225/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act. The petitioner argued receipt of cheque amount via forged acknowledgements. The respondent contested the signatures and sought trial adjudication. The court held disputed facts prevented quashing at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; proceedings under section 138 N.I. Act continue.

In this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Baishnab Behura has chal lenged the proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act in I.C.C. Case No. 24 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Pipili.

The main ground taken by the petitioner in challenging the proceeding is that the comp lainant had received the entire cheque amount and though he promised to return back the cheque and to declare it as cancelled but the same has not been done and a false case has been foist ed. In support of such contention, two acknowledgement receipts have been filed which are ann exed as Annexure-4 and Annexure-4(a).

Learned counsel for the opp.party- Arjun Majhi submits that he has filed an ap plication in Misc. case no. 955 of 2016 for vacation of stay and the grounds have been taken that alleged receipts of the cheque amount in cash and giving acknowledgement receipts are a ll forged and these disputed facts are required to be adjudicated in the Trial Court. The opp. party himself has sworn the affidavit.

receipts have been issued but the opp.party disputes his signatures and submits that Annexu re-4 and Annexure -4(a) are forged, therefore, the grounds taken by the petitioner are not su fficient to quash the proceeding in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. I n case the original acknowledgement receipts are produced before the learned Trial Court and t hose are confronted to the complainant-opp.party, he can offer his explanation and dispute his signature and the Magistrate is also at liberty to send the disputed signatures which are ava ilable in the acknowledgement receipts to the handwriting expert to compare those with the adm itted signatures and for opinion. Therefore, at this stage when the facts are disputed and com plainant- opp.party disputes his signatures in Annexure-4 and Annexure -4 (a) and submits t hat those are forged documents, I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. The CRLMC is accordingly dismissed.

Baishnab Behura v. Arjun Majhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baishnab Behura v. Arjun Majhi

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

Purna Chandra Dalei Vs Collector,Puri

Judhistir Vs Collector

Kumunda Vs State

Baishnab Behura Vs Lachhman Pradhan

Baishnab Behura Vs Hare Krushna Sahu

Baishnab Behura Vs Dwijaraj Barik