KUMAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order dtd. 13/7/2016 passed in S.T.No. 24/2013 (Kuman Vs. Kamal and ano.) whereby the learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Burhanpur has allowed application of the accused/respondent No.2 dtd. 16/7/2015 and has ordered that examination-in-chief of handwriting expert Ulhas Athle dtd. 16/7/2015 and document Ex.P/30 and P/31 and C.D. Article A-1 being inadmissible in evidence, cannot be read in evidence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before C.J.M. Burhanpur for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 420/34, 465,467,468 and 471 of IPC and Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act alleging that accused/respondent No.2 Kamal had borrowed Rs.5,00,000.00 (five lacs) from the petitioner/complainant on 5/6/2010 and had issued two cheques of different dates in his favour. It is alleged that when complainant presented those cheques in his bank for encashment, same were returned to him with an endorsement 'No sufficient amount and signature is different'. It was further alleged that both the cheques issued by accused Kamal were of his wife's bank account but accused Kamal by putting his signature on the cheques had issued in favour of the petitioner/complainant. When the cheque stood bounced on the ground of 'No sufficient amount and signature is different', the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint on 7/6/2011 before C.J.M. Burhanpur. The learned C.J.M. recorded the statement of witnesses produced by the complainant under Sec. 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. He also produced hand writing expert's report alongwith opinion that the cheques bears the signature of Kamal Bhartiya and not of Nirupama Bhartiya. The learned C.J.M. considering the statements on oath of the complainant and witnesses found that offences under Sec. 420/34, 465,467,468 and 471 of IPC are prima facie made out. He took the cognizance and ordered to summon the accused. As the case was resultof the enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C and were triable by the Court of Session, he committed it to the court of Sessions.

(3.) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused/respondent No.2. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.