IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 ._
BEFORE '0
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH H' _
CRIMINAL PETITION No0.%5;14/25391» « 3 0
BETWEEN: 0 04' " .0'
Sri.N.M.V.Devan,
S/o N.K.(}ua:'uka11,
Hindu, aged about 68'years,
R/a No.95, 7831 Cross,
New ASTC Hudco, . '
I-iosur, Tamilnadu. " ' * «} : n_V.*.«_PET1TIONER
{By Sri.Ra\dshank;1f.S & H .
Sri.K.Mur1;hY, '
AND:
Sri.Ragha#vendra.j'R_ao,7'; 0
8/ 0 Late }Z{.NaI asinga-rao ..
Hindu, Aged about 53
No.24, Seoorld Fioorj A V
Kota CoInp1ex,';J.C.Ro'ad,"»_ 0
_VVBanga,1ore *2 560 002.' V .. RESPONDENT
=s=s:=:==c==t=’=z=>:=:=
W Thisv Petition is fiied under Section 482 Cr.F’.C.
prayirig to,_vsetf–1’side the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the XV
_ 0 Add}. cmm. Bangalore in Cr1.Case N01785:/2006 on LA. Filed
” ” 45 ofihe Code of Cr}. Procedure.
._ ~..’fhis Petition coming on for admission this day. the Court
‘ __ * « inaole the following:
0 R D E R
Petitioner has called in question the order H dated
21.10.2008 in C.C.No. 17851/2006 on the file of XV’
Bangalore.
2. Respondent is the complainant, who _has” fiiledflfa .
complaint under Section 138 of the Nhegoitiablle llinstruineritsgfiicit.
In the sai.d case, the petitioner, the accused,A={hvadmfiled arr’
X; .
application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act interaiia
seeking reference of the chequep .vth§i;qp:ai3.dw1iting expert to
determine the age of the inkanid. also the v_ dii’fe’rence between the
amount writtenand date. 2′
3. considering the application has
observed that,” afterV.thdjev.sVurr1f’mo’ns were served, the evidence of
the complainaf1t_w’as” recorded and thereafter, he was cross-
aavncjvl. ;her§aft’e’r;’ on defence side, the petitioner herein
g’Veiri.dence. It is only thereafter the application is
filed ‘ intention to protract the litigation. It is also
f”~.«.._lob,served” the cheque is not in dispute. the signature
on the cheque is also not disputed and the defence
Parthasarathy, who was to be examined, is also not
, _ examined. considering the circumstances and also considering
é mi fut.’
(€””‘,?
that there is no reievancy to send the cheque for handwriting
expert /has rejected the appiication.
4. I do not find that there is any error comrrrittedfétebfvvthe
teamed Magistrate in rejecting the appiieation.
Accordingiy, this petition fails anidttsbarse
._ _
KNM/»~