Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2606 (RAJ)

Yusuf Ali v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-10-14

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu whereby in Criminal Appeal No.13/2019 titled as Yusuf Vs. Sachin, an application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C., was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application before the learned Appellate Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the bank details of the complainant and get FSL of the disputed cheque but learned Appellate Court vide order dated 26.02.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner without considering material facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Appellate Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not assailed the order of the learned trial Court dated 17.09.2018 and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed miscellaneous petition before this Court but due to conviction of the petitioner by the learned trial Court, petition became infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant had not capacity to give a huge amount to the petitioner. He had done forgery in the cheque. So, in the interest of Justice, order of the learned Appellate Court be set-aside and income tax statements as well as order be given to the learned Appellate Court to get FSL of the disputed cheque. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-(1) Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 491; (2) Survika Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 SCC Online Ori 92; (3) O.P. Sharma Vs. Ashok Bohara reported in 2011 SCC Online Raj 2691; (4) Hanuman Sahay Sharma Vs. Manish Dhamani in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1183/2009 decided on 27.09.2012; (5) K. Subramani Vs. Damodara Naidu reported in (2015) SCC 99. 4. Learned counsel counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner had not challenged the order of the learned trial Court dated 17.09.2018. He had challenged the proceedings by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that petitioner had not taken any objection during the trial. He had challenged the proceedings by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that petitioner had not taken any objection during the trial. He had taken the objection at the fage end of the trial. So, learned Appellate Court rightly rejected the application vide order dated 26.06.2021. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 also submitted that the petitioner had filed the petition on misconceived facts. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed on cost. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-(1) Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Praboth Kumar Tewari reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1089; (2) APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.271/2020 decided on 14.02.2020; (3) Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant in Criminal Appeal No.362/2022 decided on 07.03.2022; (4) P Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazer & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1233-1235/2022 decided on 12.08.2022. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2. 7. It is an admitted position that petitioner had not challenged the order of the learned trial Court dated 17.09.2018. Said order became final and petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner filed an application before the learned Appellate Court for procuring income tax statements and getting FSL of the disputed cheque. In my considered opinion, once petitioner had admitted the signature on the disputed cheque then he cannot raise any objection regarding handwriting on disputed cheque and he had no authority to procure the report regarding the capacity of the complainant. 8. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and dismissed on the cost of Rs.10,000/-. 9. Stay application also stands dismissed.