Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2359 (ALL)

Surendra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2014-08-06

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 226630 of 2014 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. Present correction application has been filed for correction of the order dated 22.5.2014 passed by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that it appears due to inadvertent mistake order of some other case has been transcribed in the present case as the present 482 application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10 Agra in Complaint Case No. 768 of 2008 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, police station New Agra, district Agra by which the findings with regard to report of the hand writing expert was recorded and the matter was fixed for hearing and discharge application of the applicant was not dismissed by the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that unless definite opinion of the hand writing expert is brought on record, the matter may not be heard and therefore, the order dated 10.3.2014 be set aside. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the order impugned as well as the material placed on record, the order dated 22.5.2014 is hereby deleted and in its place, following order is being passed: - "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. Present 482 application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10 Agra in Complaint Case No. 768 of 2008 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, police station New Agra, district Agra by which the findings with regard to report of the hand writing expert was recorded and the matter was fixed for 02.4.2014 for hearing. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as no definite opinion of the hand writing expert was given, therefore, unless such definite opinion is brought on record, the matter may not be heard, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as no definite opinion of the hand writing expert was given, therefore, unless such definite opinion is brought on record, the matter may not be heard, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A, after perusing the order impugned as well as the averments as contained in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order impugned. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the order dated 10.3.2014 is refused Present application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. NO order as to costs." Present correction application accordingly disposed of.