Dismissed

Joga Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Aug 2018CRM-M/28017/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition regarding a cheque dishonour case, the High Court dismissed the plea to quash the trial court's order rejecting an application for handwriting and fingerprint experts. The court held the petitioner had admitted the signature, making expert evidence unnecessary. Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the trial court's order dismissing the application for expert examination is dismissed.

Joga Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-28017 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-28017 of 2016 Date of Decision:30.08.2018

Joga Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶11

Present: - Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for quashing order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure P-6) of the trial Court, whereby application of the petitioner for examining handwriting and fingerprint expert has been dismissed.

¶14

In nutshell, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, in which he was summoned to face trial. During trial, petitioner moved application for examining handwriting and fingerprint expert to prove that he never issued the cheque in question. After contest from both sides, said application of the petitioner has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.05.2016.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that examination of handwriting and fingerprint expert is very much necessary in view of the fact that respondent No.2-complainant misused the cheque by

¶16

RAVINDER SINGH 2018.09.06 17:07 filling his own name, though it was blank and issued in the name of one I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Major Singh.

-2-

CRM-M-28017 of 2016

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the instant petition is completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow.

¶21

The petitioner has not denied his signature on the cheque in question in cross-examination and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well, rather he admitted the same.

¶22

Whether the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2 or not is the matter of appreciation of evidence by the trial Court.

¶23

Handwriting and fingerprint expert cannot prove transaction between the parties as he was not present at the relevant time.

¶24

In view of above, petition is dismissed.

¶25

(RAMENDRA JAIN) August 30, 2018 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶26

RAVINDER SINGH 2018.09.06 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Joga Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joga Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

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

Jogesh Kohli Vs Gurcharan Singh

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karamjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Rajwant Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baldev Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others