Justice Sabina dismissed a criminal Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders in a cheque dishonour case, holding that no grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference had occurred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2671/2017
Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Om Prakash, Proprietor Kymax Power, Janki Path Market, Salasar Bus Stand, Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Vasudev Khilnani S/o Shri Gopichand Khilnani, R/o House No.1/458, Silver Avenue, Sector 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Proprietor Shilesh Pharma, 502, 4th Floor, Dawa Bazar, Film Colony, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment/Order
18/08/2017
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the orders dated 20.01.2017 and 24.04.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that parties were having business dealings. Both the parties had issued blank cheques in favour of each other by way of security. However, the cheques issued by the petitioner by way of security have been misutilised by the complainant. Hence, it was very essential to get the writing on the cheque examined with the standard writing of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition and has submitted that the parties were having business dealings. However, complainant had not given any blank signed cheques in favour of the petitioner. The cheque in question is duly signed by the petitioner. In-fact, seven cheques were issued by the
(2 of 2)
petitioner in favour of the complainant. Five cheques were dishonoured by the bank when they were presented for encashment.
In the present case, admittedly, cheque in question is duly signed by the petitioner. Law only requires that the cheque in question should be signed by the drawer. Law does not require that the remaining part of the cheque should also be filled in by the drawer himself. In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for getting the hand writing on the cheque (except the signatures) examined from the expert with the standard hand writing of the petitioner. The court of revision has also rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/70
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of revision by the Sessions Court.
Whether the drawing of a signed blank cheque by the drawer is necessary or if other numberings are required.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Om Prakash
Vasudev Khilnani
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
