1

906- Cri WP- 379-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.379 OF 2020

VISHAL S/O. KOMALSING PATIL

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

CHANDRAKANT S. KANGANE

..RESPONDENT

...

Advocate for Petitioner

:

Mr. R.B. Temak

Advocate for Respondent

:

Mr. A.S. Khedkar

…

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J.

DATE : 28.10.2021

PER COURT :-

This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 06-02-2020

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon,

District Dhule, below Exhibit-192 in Summery Criminal Case No.

1096 of 2008.

2.

The petitioner herein has fled complaint case against the

respondent for the ofence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3.

The applicant had moved an application at Exhibit-192 with

a prayer to refer the cheque in question to handwriting expert. It

is further prayed that Compact Disk (CD) containing conversation

between the complainant-petitioner and the accused- respondent

2

906- Cri WP- 379-2020.odt

in relation to the transaction in question be sent to Forensic

Expert. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application by

the order impugned.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondent.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for just

decision of the case, the learned Magistrate ought to have referred

the cheque in question to handwriting expert as defence of the

accused is that the cheque in question was never issued by him. It

is submitted that CD in which there is conversation between the

petitioner and the respondent in relation to the transaction in

question was also required to be sent to Forensic Expert for

examination as the same would have helped the learned

Magistrate to arrive at just decision of the case.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the present application came to be moved after

seven years of the fling of the complaint case and that too after

the defence evidence is over. It is submitted that the learned

Magistrate was therefore, justifed in rejecting the application at

Exhibit-192.

7.

It appears that the evidence of the petitioner-

complainant and even the defence evidence is already over.

3

906- Cri WP- 379-2020.odt

Thereafter, petitioner-complainant moved an application for

adducing additional evidence and same was allowed. After

adducing additional evidence, the petitioner- complainant closed

his evidence. Thereafter, application at Exhibit-192 came to be

moved when the petitioner-complainant was aware about the

defence of the respondent-accused from the very initial stage of

fling of the complaint.

8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no

interference is called for in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction.

Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.

( N. R. BORKAR )

JUDGE

ysk