SUNIL HIRALAL CHAINANI Vs. LEENA YOGESH BALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. The applicant -original accused in SCC No. 4926/2012 pray to exercise power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside order dated 2.9.2013 rejecting his application for putting a particular question in the nature of denial to respondent -original complainant in the said case.

(2.) CONSIDERING nature of controversy involved and the same being related with an aspect related with incomplete cross -examination of the complainant, it appears proper not to dilate in detail about subject matter involved in the case, except stating that the said case pertains to the allegation of applicant having committed an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Needless to add, the case has arisen due to alleged failure of applicant to pay the amount demanded after service of notice of demand due to bouncing of cheque allegedly given by him. The applicant, during the cross -examination of complainant, had given a suggestion of the cheque in question being not in the handwriting of the applicant. Considering the evidence by then surfaced in the said case, the trial court rejected the said suggestion during recording of evidence of respondent -complainant. The applicant has, thereafter, preferred an application for similar purpose and the same was rejected by order impugned in the present application.