1

wp886.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 886 OF 2018

Rajesh Rameshwar Hurkat,

Aged about 49 years,

Occupation – Business,

R/o Ansing, Tq. and District Washim.

….

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1) State of Maharashtra,

through P.S.O. Ansing, Ansing,

District Washim.

2) Ashok Shivalal Harkut,

Aged – Adult,

R/o Ansing, Tq. & District Washim,

Police Station, Ansing.

…. RESPONDENTS

______________________________________________________________

Mr. A.M. Kukday, Counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. N.R. Rode, Addl.P.P. for respondent 1/State,

None for respondent 2.

______________________________________________________________

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 9

th FEBRUARY, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is facing trial in connection with Crime 55/99

registered with Ansing Police Station, District-Washim for offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2

wp886.18

2.

The crime is registered on the basis of report dated 27-8-1999

lodged by Mr. Ashok Harkut, respondent 2 herein, who shall be

referred to as the complainant.

3.

The gist of the report is that the complainant availed loan of

Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner, who shall be hereinafter referred to as

the accused, and as security pledged his motorcycle. The complainant

approached the accused and offered to return the loan amount. The

accused, however, avoided to return the motorcycle on one pretext or

the other and enquiries with the Regional Transport Office revealed

that the motorcycle was sold to one Mr. Bhaskar Borkar by forging the

signature of the complainant on the transfer documents.

4.

Culmination of investigation resulted in the submission of the

final report. The trial Court framed charge under Sections 406, 420,

468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence commenced and

as many as seven witnesses are examined.

5.

The complainant preferred an application Exhibit 34 seeking a

direction to the accused to give the handwriting specimen and to send

the same to the Handwriting Expert for fresh examination.

3

wp886.18

6.

The accused opposed the application Exhibit 34 preferred by the

complainant pointing out that the Assistant State Examiner of the

Documents to whom the specimen of the handwriting collected during

investigation, has given a report and that the Expert did attend the

Court for recording of evidence on 04-12-2013 and, therefore, the

prayer to have a fresh examination of the handwriting specimen is not

tenable. The accused specifically contended that the application

preferred by the complainant was not tenable.

7.

The learned Magistrate partly allowed Exhibit 34 vide order

dated 30-4-2014 and the operative part of the order reads thus :

“v-

vtZ va’kr% eatwj-

c-

eksVjlk;dy dzekad ,e-,p-&31lh&7999 ps uksan.kh izek.ki=kojhy

lgh ^D;q&6* ;kph iMrkG.kh QkWeZ Vh-lh-,-@Vh-lh-vkj- o R;klkscr nksUgh

QkWElZps Nkihy nLrkojhy xkMh fod.kk&;kP;k lg;k D;q&1] D;q&2] D;q&3]

D;q&4 vkf.k D;q&6 lkscr iMrkG.kh dj.;klkBh gLrk{kj rKkdMs ikBokos-

d-

QkWeZ Vh-lh-,-@Vh-lh-vkj- vkf.k R;klkscr nksu Nkihy QkWElZ

R;kojhy okgu fodzh dj.kk&;kps vaxB;kps Bls D;q&1] D;q&2] D;q&3]

D;q&4 vkf.k D;q&6 gs riklkdkeh ?ksrysY;k fQ;kZnhP;k vaxB;kaP;k B’;kaps

uequs] f’kV ,dq.k 6 ;kaP;klkscr iMrkG.kh vkf.k rikl.kh dj.;klkBh

gLrk{kj rKkdMs ikBokos-

M-

QkWeZ Vh-lh-,-@Vh-lh-vkj- vkf.k R;klkscr nksu Nkihy QkWElZ

R;kojhy okgu fodzh dj.kk&;kps vaxB;kps Bls D;q&1] D;q&2] D;q&3]

D;q&4 vkf.k D;q&6 gs riklkdkeh ?ksrysY;k vkjksihP;k vaxB;kaP;k B’;kaps

uequs f’kV ,dq.k 5 ;klkscr iMrkG.kh vkf.k rikl.kh dj.;klkBh gLrk{kj

rKkdMs ikBokos-

b-

lg;k vkf.k vaxB;kps uequs flycan ikdhVkr ikBfoi.;kr ;kosr-”

8.

The complainant assailed the order of the learned Magistrate in

4

wp886.18

Criminal Revision 36/2014, which is dismissed vide order dated

10-7-2018.

9.

The complainant is invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under

Articles 2