Dismissed

Baishnab Behura v. Hare Krushna Sahu

Orissa HC23 Aug 2016CRLMC/2227/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Rejecting the petitioner's claim of cheque receipt via a allegedly forged acknowledgement, the Court held that disputed facts require trial court adjudication and forensic verification.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act continues.

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. 26 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- Hare Krushna Sahu s ubmits that he has filed an application in Misc. case no. 957 of 2016 for vacation of stay and the grounds have been taken that alleged receipt of the cheque amount in cash and giving ackn owledgement receipt are all forged and these disputed facts are required to be adjudicated in the Trial Court. The opp.party himself has sworn the affidavit.

receipts has been issued but the opp.party disputes his signature and submits that Annexure- 4 is forged, therefore, the grounds taken by the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the p roceeding in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. In case the original ac knowledgement receipt is produced before the learned Trial Court and it is confronted to the c omplainant-opp.party, he can offer his explanation and dispute his signature and the Magistrat e is also at liberty to send the disputed signature which is available in the acknowledgement receipt to the handwriting expert to compare it with the admitted signatures and for opinion. Therefore, at this stage when the facts are disputed and complainant- opp.party disputes his s ignature in Annexure-4 and submits that it is a forged document, I am not inclined to accept t he prayer made by the petitioner and accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. st ands dismissed.

Baishnab Behura v. Hare Krushna Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baishnab Behura v. Hare Krushna Sahu

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 Lachhman Pradhan

Baishnab Behura Vs Dwijaraj Barik