TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g filing of SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by the parties . 3. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act, 1881") was issued to the petitioner by respondent/ complainant alleging that in order to sell his land, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant. Accordingly, on 23.10.2011, the complainant paid Rs. 61,00,000/- to the accused and the accused has also given him a receipt of the same. However, subsequently, the petitioner expressed his inability for execution of sale deed and both the parties agreed to cancel the agreement executed between them. It was agreed by the petitioner that he will compensate the complainant and he will pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000,00/- in lieu of Rs. 61,00,000/- received as advance money. 4. On 14.05.2014, the petitioner issued a cheque of HDFC Bank Branch- Korba in favour of the respondent, however, when the cheque was presented on 15.05.2014, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement that there is insufficient amount in the account. The complainant informed the petitioner about dishonour of the cheque, but he has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner can defend himself by adducing his defence witnesses. 7. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that complainant has filed complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against respondent- Rudhmal Agrawal and his son-in-law Rakesh Goyal for committing offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 of I.P.C., whereas the respondent moved an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2015. Against that rejection order, the respondent moved an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. bearing MCRCA No. 978/2015 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 04.12.2015 dismissed the application filed by the respondent for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. On 30.01.2016, the complainant and the petitioner entered into a compromise in which the complainant has specially stated that he will withdraw his Complaint Case No. 625/2016, and if any proceeding will be done by him, the same shall be treated as null and void. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the respondent has further moved an application before this Court under Section under 438 of Cr.P.C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly objected the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has not placed true and correct factual matrix of the case. The petitioner has also filed CRMP No. 584/2016 and 583/2016 challenging various orders passed by learned trial Court as well as by Revisional Court. The details of order assailed by the petitioner are given in table format as under:- SN Trial Court's order date Revisional Court's order & date Remarks High Court's Order & Date Supreme Court's Order & date 1. 16.02.15 CRR No. 12/2015 dt. 27.04.15 Charges have been framed CRMP No. 415/20152 9.06.15 2 29.03.16 CRR No. 32/2016 dt. 25.04.16 Application u/s 311 has been rejected. CRMP No. 583/20162 3.08.16 3 16.03.16 CRR No. 31/2016 dt. 25.04.16 Petitioner's right to lead evidence has been closed. CRMP No. 584/20162 3.08.16 4 SLP (Crl.) 21527/20 17 SLP dismissed on the ground of delay. 04.12.17 5 SLP (Crl.) 800/2018 SLP dismissed on the ground of delay. 16.03.18 13. Referring to these aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Society Vs. Mr. Seby Noronha [(2018) 5 MhLJ (Crl) 320], Jaishree w/o Shivprasad Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & another [2011 (3) MhLJ 418], judgment passed by Himachal Pradesh High Court in Surender Sharma Vs. Nek Ram Verma [Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 523 of 2018 (decided on 10.07.2019)], judgment passed by Delhi High Court in Kanshi Ram Bansal Vs. Suman Malhotra [(2012) 5 RCR (Criminal) 444], judgment passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ankit Shrivastav Vs. Binod Kumar Rai [(2020) 3 RCR (Criminal) 288], judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in K. Suresh Vs. Secretary, Karnataka Contractors [(2019) ACD 534] & judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Sunita Dubey Vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwar [(2015) 1 MPLJ 574]. 18. From the facts as reflected in the case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner's right to lead evidence has been closed against which revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge and Criminal Misc. Petition by this Court as well as the SLP by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the ground of delay. Thus, the petitioner has not availed the remedy of defence witnesses, but the reason assigned for not examining the evidence is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. `Fair trial' includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules or procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder." 22. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 30.05.2015 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner referring the matter to handwriting expert which was not challenged by the petitioner before any court till filing of revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Korba in CRR No. 12/2017. The said order was assailed in the year 2017 and the learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 21.06.2017 has rejected the said revision petition by recording finding that the petitioner has admitted the signature therefore order passed by Judaical Magistrate First Class rejecting application is legal justified, accordingly the revision petition is liable to be rejected with cost of Rs. 500/-. This order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Co....