Karnataka High Court
Tarukh S/O. Dadapir Haji, vs Murtojali Kamalsab Pendari, on 10 December, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRL.P.NO.102049 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
TARUKH S/O. DADAPIR HAJI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MUKAM POST
MAHANTESH NAGAR, RAMDURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL, ADV.)
AND
MURTOJALI KAMALSAB PENDARI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O: PENDARI GALLI,
RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY
SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RAMDURGA ON I.A.
FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 45 OF INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT, IN C.C.NO.151/2015 AND ALLOW THE
I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 45 OF INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurga on Interlocutory Application filed in C.C.No.151/2015.
2. Complainant-Murtojali Kamalasab Pendari filed a complaint against the Tarukh Dadapir Haji. Case came to be registred under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the learned JMFC in refusing to send the document i.e. cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink and to compare the signature of the accused with the admitted signature against the disputed one. The contention of the petitioner is that his signature is forged. However, signature on the cheques is not disputed. The submission of the petitioner is twofold.
i) They had given the cheque as a security for the repayment of debt and he had not received the money or its equivalent.:3:
ii) He refers in the evidence that the matter pertains to a transaction among the petitioner and others which included the complainant-respondent also.
4. In the circumstances of admission of the signature on the cheque and contention that the cheque was issued by the petitioner as a security or otherwise, whether for the present transaction or for the earlier transaction or in case of the present transaction, the legal aspects to be ascertained during the trial. However, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, at this stage, is not open for the petitioner to question and succeed. Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb