Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1117 (HP)

Tarapati v. Tej Mani

2019-08-07

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, is directed against order dated 30.4.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Revision Petition No. 13/2014, affirming order dated 24.4.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in complaint No. 752-iii/2013 (II). 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant(hereinafter, 'complainant) initiated proceedings under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, alleging therein that the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused'), with a view to discharge his liability, issued two cheques bearing Nos. 141019 dated 3.6.2011 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and No. 141018 dated 15.6.2011 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-, however, on presentation, both the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since accused despite having received legal notice, failed to make the payment good within the period prescribed in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act ibid. 3. During pendency of the proceedings, as referred herein above, accused filed an application under S.243 CrPC, averring therein that a sum of Rs.60,000/- out of total Rs.67,000/- stands duly paid to the complainant, who, in turn has issued receipt but since the complainant is now denying receipt of the amount referred to herein above, admitted signatures of the complainant may be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with his signatures on the receipt. 4. Aforesaid application came to be allowed vide order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure P-1) but since the accused, despite repeated opportunities granted by learned Court below, failed to take steps for sending document in question to the SFSL Junga, learned Court below, vide order dated 24.4.2014, closed the defence of the accused. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, accused preferred a criminal revision petition under S.397 CrPC, in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, who, vide order dated 30.4.2019, dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, accused preferred a criminal revision petition under S.397 CrPC, in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, who, vide order dated 30.4.2019, dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside order dated 24.4.2014 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate as well as order dated 304..2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, respectively, and to grant him one last opportunity to take steps for sending the questioned document to the SFSL, Junga, for expert opinion. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis- -vis reasoning assigned by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi while passing order dated 30.4.2019, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same, as such, calls for no interference. Admittedly, order dated 24.4.2014, being an interlocutory order, could not be laid challenge by way of a criminal revision under S.397 CrPC, however, having taken note of the fact that order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, has attained finality, because at no point of time, aforesaid order ever came to be laid challenge by the complainant, this Court deems it fit to grant one last opportunity to the accused to take steps for sending document in question to FSL Junga, for expert opinion, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Ordered accordingly. 7. Consequently, in view of above, order dated 24.4..2014 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Mandi (Annexure P-2), whereby defence of the accused has been closed, is set aside and accused is permitted to take steps for sending questioned document in terms of order dated 26.11.2013, within a period of one week from today, enabling learned Court below to send the questioned document to SFSL, Junga, failing which order dated 24.4.2014, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, shall automatically revive and no further opportunity for the purpose shall be granted. Learned counsel for the accused undertakes to cause presence of his client before learned Court below on 14.8.2019, so that needful in terms of this order is done. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.