Madhukar Narayan Bhat vs Savita Rajan Hegde on 26 March, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Madhukar Narayan Bhat vs Savita Rajan Hegde on 26 March, 2018

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                                       Crl.P No. 102162/2017

                            :1:


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102162/2017
BETWEEN:

MADHUKAR NARAYAN BHAT
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GANDHINAGAR, TQ: SIRSI.
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     SAVITA RAJAN HEGDE
       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: ADKALLI, TQ: SIDDAPUR.

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SIRSI POLICE,
       REPRESENTED BY SPP,
       HIGH COURT PREMISES,
       DHARWAD.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R2;
    SRI. ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
                            ---

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 8.9.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.5004 OF 2015 CONFIRMING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. JMFC, SIRSI ON
I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 311A IN C.C.NO. 3255 OF 2008
DATED 18.11.2015.
                                          Crl.P No. 102162/2017

                            :2:


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

In this petition the petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.5004/2015 confirming the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Court of I Addl. JMFC, Sirsi on I.A.No.1/2011 in C.C.No.3255/2008.

2. In a proceedings filed by the respondents herein under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the respondents moved an application under Section 311A of Cr.P.C. for examination of Ex.P6 by the handwriting expert. As the accused disputed the handwriting in the said document, both the Courts below have found it necessary to refer Ex.P6 for examination by the handwriting expert.

3. I do not find any error or infirmity in the said orders. The Courts below have rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the said application. Both the Courts below are of the view that the opinion of the handwriting expert is just and necessary for the fair disposal of the Crl.P No. 102162/2017 :3: pending matter. Hence no interference is called for in the petition.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE gab

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court