High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 10 UK CK 0112

Shri Dinesh ChAnd Goyal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 30 October 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1698 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 371 words

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.

Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant, on 19. 06.2007 before the Special Judicial Magistrate IInd, Dehradun. The said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 2835 of 2007 and thereafter, upon transfer of the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate IInd, the complaint case has been renumbered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 462 of 2015.

3.

It transpires that applicant moved an application in the year 2016 for summoning the defence witnesses and also for calling the handwriting expert. The said application was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate on 22.09.2016. Thereafter, applicant moved yet another application before the Judicial Magistrate with a prayer that the complainant be directed to provide his specimen signature to the handwriting expert. The said application was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 28.07.2017. Feeling aggrieved, applicant preferred revision before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 22. 09.2018. Both these orders have been challenged by the applicant in the present C482 application.

4.

I have gone through the orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned revisional Court. Learned courts below have rejected the application for specimen signature upon due consideration of Section 311A of Cr.P.C. and have given cogent reasons for disallowing the request made by the applicant. Learned courts below have observed that the applicant is using dilatory tactics for delying disposal of the complaint case.

5.

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this C482 application. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity to lead evidence, is granted to the applicant. The applicant is directed to appear before learned trial court on 13.11.2018 to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant assures the Court that the applicant will give written intimation about this order to the learned trial court as well as Respondent No. 2, on or before 10. 11.2018.

6.

With the aforesaid direction, criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

7.

Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the applicant within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.