Dismissed

Baishnab Behura v. Dwijaraj Barik

Orissa HC23 Aug 2016CRLMC/2228/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner claimed cash receipt and forgery of an acknowledgement receipt, but the Court held such disputed facts require adjudication in the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; maintaining proceedings in the Trial Court.

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. 27 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- Dwijaraj Barik subm its that he has filed an application in Misc. case no. 958 of 2016 for vacation of stay and th e grounds have been taken that alleged receipt of the cheque amount in cash and giving acknow ledgement receipt are all forged and these disputed facts are required to be adjudicated in t he 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 is forged, therefore, the grounds taken by the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the proc eeding in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. In case the original ackno wledgement receipt is produced before the learned Trial Court and it is confronted to the comp lainant-opp.party, he can offer his explanation and dispute his signature and the Magistrate i s also at liberty to send the disputed signature which is available in the acknowledgement rec eipt to the handwriting expert to compare it with the admitted signatures and for opinion. The refore, at this stage when the facts are disputed and complainant- opp.party disputes his sign ature in Annexure-4 and submits that it is a forged document, I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stand s dismissed.

Baishnab Behura v. Dwijaraj Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baishnab Behura v. Dwijaraj Barik

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 Hare Krushna Sahu