Dismissed

Khem Raj Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Aug 2022CRLMP/3198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged trial proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, citing a bank letter suggesting the cheque was not returned for insufficient funds. The Court held it was not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction as the case has been pending for years and such evidence is for the trial Court. Both the main petition and stay petition were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Khem Raj Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3198/2022

¶3

Khem Raj Kumawat S/o Sh. Dayalal Ji Kumawat, Aged About 61 Years, 18 G, Hiranmagri Sector 14, Opp. Street Of Community Hall, Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan

¶7

Lokesh Bhanawat W/o Chandmal Ji, B/c Jain, Proprietor Of Kalyan Building Material, Rishabhdev, Teh. Rishabhde, Dist. Udaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Karmendra Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati,Public Prosecutor

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

26/08/2022

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No.164/2012, wherein petitioner is being tried for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the letter dated 29.07.2015, issued by the Allahabad Bank and submitted that the subject cheque bering No.2806 was neither signed by the petitioner nor was the same returned on account of insufficient funds.

¶15

He argued that in spite of these glaring facts, the petitioner is facing trial, which is prejudicing his rights.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-3198/2022]

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering that the complaint case is pending since 2011 and the petitioner has approached this Court after facing trial for 11 years, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

¶19

So far as petitioner's contention emanating from letter of the Allahabad Bank dated 29.07.2015 is concerned, the same is subservient to evidence and unless requisite evidence is produced before the trial Court, no finding can be given by this Court in inherent jurisdiction.

¶20

The misc. petition is dismissed.

¶21

The petitioner will be free to raise all the contentions before the trial Court, which would obviously consider the same in accordance with law.

¶22

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶23

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶24

158-Ramesh/-

Khem Raj Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Khem Raj Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Bheru Das Vs State

Ramesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Vs State

Mathar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Kalal Vs State of Rajasthan