Dismissed

Radheshyam Harijan S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Harijan B/C Harijan v. Sua Lal Saini S/O Shri Chhitarmal Saini

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2020CRLMP/989/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 45 Evidence Act, the petitioner sought opinion of an expert on cheque contents. The court observed that signatures were admitted by the petitioner. Citing precedents, it held that no interference with the Magistrate's order rejecting FSL was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition for expert opinion under Section 45 Evidence Act dismissed; no interference with impugned order.

Radheshyam Harijan S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Harijan B/C… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 989/2019

¶3

Radheshyam Harijan S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Harijan B/c Harijan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Post Harijan Basti Nadi Me, Mundiya Ramsar Stand, Bindayaka Gaon Se Aage, Jaipur, Raj. (As Per Complaint).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sua Lal Saini S/o Shri Chhitarmal Saini, R/o 94, Rana Pratap Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

22/01/2020

¶12

The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the order by which his application moved u/s 45 of Evidence Act seeking opinion of expert by third person has been rejected in a case filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while he has been admitted his signatures on the cheque in view of the statement made by the respondent that cheque was filled up in his presence, it has become necessary to get the handwriting expert’s opinion with regard to the entry of the contents of the cheque as the case of the petitioner was that he had given blank cheque as a security.

¶14

The provision of Section 45 of the Evidence Act relates to seeking of opinion by the court from experts in relation to all the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-989/2019]

¶17

fields for which the court may so require. So far as the handwriting part is concerned, there is a specific provision u/s 73 of the Evidence Act where court itself satisfy with regard to the handwriting signature or seal or other admitted documents in this regard, the discretion is exclusively available for the that the provision of Section 45 of the Evidence Act may or may not be invoked by the court.

¶18

Keeping in view the above if facts of the present case are noticed that the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate(N.I. Act Cases)NO.1, Jaipur Metropolitan has passed detailed order on 17.11.2018 and after considered the law as laid down by the this Court in the case of “Asha Vs. Brijmohan Chabar a” reported in2014(Suppl)Civil Court Cases 642(Raj.) and law laid down by the High Court as reported in 2017(1)NIJ(Raj.) in the case o f”Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan” ; has reached to the conclusion that there is no requirement of sending the cheques for FSL purpose, the view taken by the concerned Magistrate does not warrant any interference as admittedly, the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the cheques and so far as the other ground which the petitioner wants to take, he would always be free to take the same at the time of trial.

¶19

In view of above, this petition is without any merit and the same is therefore dismissed.

¶20

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶21

Anu /397

Radheshyam Harijan S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Harijan B/C Harijan v. Sua Lal Saini S/O Shri Chhitarmal Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam Harijan S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Harijan B/C Harijan v. Sua Lal Saini S/O Shri Chhitarmal Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs Sumer Singh

Meenu Garg Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Jain Vs Union of India

Gyan Chand Agrawal S/O Late Shri Surajmal Agrawal B/C Agrawal/Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Yadav S/O Shri Kg Yadav Vs Akhilesh Sharma S/O Shri Kirti Kumar Ramratan Sharma

Neetu Yogi D/O Shree Durga Lal B/C Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan