SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(MP) 608

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Aniruddh Meena – Appellant
Versus
Harnam Singh Meena – Respondent


Advocates:
Gagan Parashar,

INDORE: dated 09/03/2018 Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the applicant.

None for the respondent.

The applicant/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 21/11/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biaora in Criminal Case No.302/2012 whereby his application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed cheque for examination by the handwriting expert has been rejected.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act alleging that the applicant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from him and toward discharge of the aforesaid debt, applicant issued a cheque. When the cheque was presented for realization, the said was dishonored.

The applicant has submitted an application under Section

45 of the Evidence Act before the Trial Court praying that the disputed cheque be sent for examination by the handwriting expert with regards to the figure which has been made are as “3,25,000/-” in place of “25,000/-” There is a different of handwriting and age of the “three”.

Trial Court after hearing both the parties, by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top