Dismissed

Baishnab Behura v. Lachhman Pradhan

Orissa HC23 Aug 2016CRLMC/2226/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged criminal proceedings under S. 138 N.I. Act alleging cheque was returned and acknowledgement forged. Dispute over signature authenticity made facts triable. Inherent power invoked conservatively; application dismissed, matter remitted to trial court for adjudication on signature and forgery.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; parties directed to trial court for adjudication on forgery and signature.

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. 25 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, acknowledgement receipt has been filed which is annexed as Annexure-4.

Learned counsel for the opp.party- Lachhman Pradhan su bmits that he has filed an application in Misc. case no. 956 of 2016 for vacation of stay and the grounds have been taken that alleged receipt of the cheque amount in cash and giving ack nowledgement receipt are all forged and these disputed facts are required to be adjudicated i n the Trial Court. The opp.party himself has sworn the affidavit.

receipt has been issued but the opp.party disputes his signature and submits that Annexure-4 i s forged, therefore, the grounds taken by the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the proce eding in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. In case the original acknow ledgement receipt is produced before the learned Trial Court and it is confronted to the compl ainant-opp.party, he can offer his explanation and dispute his signature and the Magistrate is also at liberty to send the disputed signature which is available in the acknowledgement rece ipt to the handwriting expert to compare it with the admitted signatures and for opinion. Ther efore, at this stage when the facts are disputed and complainant- opp.party disputes his signa ture in Annexure-4 and submits that it is a forged document, I am not inclined to accept the p rayer made by the petitioner and accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

Baishnab Behura v. Lachhman Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baishnab Behura v. Lachhman Pradhan

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 Arjun Majhi

Baishnab Behura Vs Hare Krushna Sahu

Baishnab Behura Vs Dwijaraj Barik