Dismissed

Mohammed Yusuf Sheikh v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2018CRLMP/597/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the dismissal of the Special Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting the petitioner's applications for cheque expert examination and summoning a bank manager under Sections 45 of the Evidence Act and 315/311 Cr.P.C., finding no illegality in the refusal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition and the stay petition were dismissed.

Mohammed Yusuf Sheikh Vs State and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 597/2018

¶3

Mohammed Yusuf Sheikh Son Of Hanif Sheikh , By Caste Muslim, Resident Of House No. 349, Jhanwaro Ka Mohalla, Mandal Police Station, Mandal, District Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan

¶7

Sumit Duniwal Son Of Shri Shanti Lal Duniwal , Resident Of A-41, Rc Vyas Colony, Bhilwara, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Order

¶12

03/08/2018

¶13

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 8.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara (for short ‘the revisional court’) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶14

The said revision petition was filed against the order dated 22.5.2017 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate N.I. Act Cases, No.1, Bhilwara (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 315 and 311 Cr.P.C. have been dismissed with a cost of Rs.500/-.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-597/2018]

¶17

Vide application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner prayed that the cheque in question be sent for examination of the writings and signatures by an expert and the application under Sections 315 and 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner with a prayer for summoning the Manager of SBBJ Bank, Branch Mandal for recording his statement.

¶18

The trial court has rejected the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act while observing that as a matter of fact the cheque in question was returned by the Bank with remark “insufficient fund” and not on account of dis-similarity in signature or handwriting of the petitioner.

¶19

The trial court also rejected the application under Sections 315 and 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner while observing that when the cheque in question was not returned on account of dis-similarity of signatures and was returned on account of “insufficient fund”, there is no requirement of summoning the Manager of Bank for recording his statement.

¶20

The revisional court has also dealt with the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner in detail and has affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, hence, no case for interference is made out.

¶22

The criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.

¶23

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶24

Babulal/24

Mohammed Yusuf Sheikh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Yusuf Sheikh v. State and 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

Smt Parsi Vs State

Munni Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Lal Vs State and Ors.

Ramakant Sharma Vs State

Suman and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Abhay Bharunt Vs Smt Pooja