Mahadev S/O. Haribhau Tatake v. Bhimkumar S/O. Chijandas Jiwnani

1 wp695.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.695/2018 Mahadev S/o Haribhau Tatake ..Vs..

Bhimkumar S/o Chijandas Jiwnani - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 30.8.2018.

1.

Heard Ms. Sonali B. Khobragade, Advocate h/f Shri M.S. Gawai, Advocate for the petitioner. 2.

This writ petition is filed by the accused to challenge the order passed by the trial Court by which the application (Exh. No.57) filed by the accused praying that the cheque in question be referred to Handwriting Expert, is rejected.

3.

After considering the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate has recorded his conclusions in paragraph No.12 of the impugned order as follows: "12] Accused appears to have disputed his signature over the cheque, while moving instant application.

However, it is not defence of accused that his signature has been forged or he never signed the cheque. Further, no such stand has been taken by the accused during his examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the 'Act'. Accused has not replied demand notice of complainant.

His defence appears to be that the cheque has been issued towards security.

Therefore, there is no dispute that the

2 wp695.18 cheque has been issued by accused. In view of same, to prove that the cheque has been issued towards security, opinion of an handwriting expert is not necessary.

The other contents in the cheque whether filled by complainant or otherwise, is also not subject matter of instant application."

4.

I find that the conclusions of learned Magistrate are based on proper appreciation of material on record and it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any error of jurisdiction which necessitates interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE Tambaskar.