Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ganpati Enterprises And Ors vs Aditya Kumar Sharma on 7 April, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1094 / 2010
1. Ganpati Enterprises, Through Proprietor Manju Gupta, W/o Shri
Rajesh Gupta, R/o 1/187, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Manju Gupta, W/o Shri Rajesh Gupta, Proprietor Ganpati
Enterprises, 1/187, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Aditya Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sharma, R/o 78-
A, Soni Ka Bagh, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Complainant-Non-Petitioner
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Gangwar
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment 07/04/2017
1. Petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition aggrieved by order dated 16.06.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the Court rejected the revision-petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.03.2010 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I Act Cases) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that sum of Rs. 42,000/- was taken by the petitioner and for the payment of the amount, nine cheques were delivered to the complainant.
3. It is contended that the cheques were not signed when they were delivered to the complainant. The complainant has later on (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1094/2010] entered sum of Rs. 8 lacs in the cheque.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states that an application was filed before the Court below for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert to tally the signatures on the cheque with signatures of petitioner No. 2 Manju Gupta.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "T Nagappa vs. Y.R. Murlidhar 2008 Volume 2 WLC Supreme Court Criminal 2007 TDR Volume 1 Page 168, Ms. Kalyani Baskar vs. Ms. Sampoornam 2007 Volume 1, R.C.R. Page 311, G Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1354/2009, decided by the Apex Court on 29.07.2009.
6. It is contended by counsel for the respondent that the petitioners did not reply to the notice given under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, defence evidence has already been adduced by the petitioner and the matter was listed for final arguments. At this belated stage, petitioner has moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert. It is contended that petitioner has already availed of the remedy of revision and second revision being barred under Section 397(3) of Cr. P.C, miscellaneous petition cannot be entertained.
7. I have considered the contentions and have perused the judgments cited at Bar. In "T Nagappa vs. Y.R. Murlidhar"
(supra). The Apex Court held that ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the Court for obtaining assistance with regard to summoning the witnesses etc. It was however held that the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1094/2010] or summon witness whose evidence, is not at all relevant. "Ms. Kalyani Baskar vs. Ms. Sampoornam" (supra) the Apex Court was the case where at the initial stage of her appearance before the Magistrate, the appellant had filed an application under Section 245 Cr. P.C. in which she had categorically denied her signatures on the cheque. The Court held that the report of handwriting expert should be obtained.
8. In the present case in hand it is after recording of defence evidence that the petitioners have moved an application disputing the signatures on the cheque. It is pertinent to note that no reply to the notice under Section 138 of the N.I Act was given by the petitioners. The cheques were not dishonored on account of non matching of signatures. It is thus apparent that belated application has been moved only to protract the trial. It may further be noted that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision and second revision being barred, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent powers.
9. Considering the same, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. Amit/40