High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Marsel Rodrigues vs Sri B Nagaraju on 29 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Marsel Rodrigues vs Sri B Nagaraju on 29 October, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN" THE HIGH COURT or: KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 29"' day of October, 2069

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G i  °" i

Criminal Petition 3261_/.2003  V'
Between: 1 ii

Sri Marsel Rodrigues. Ex--Serviceman

S/o Sri Ambrose Rodrigttes

58 yrs, R/a # 3--293, River Street  ~. & 
Maddur Town, Mandya District     Petitioner

(By Sri H C Shivaramu, Adv.)

And:

Sri B Nagaraju',"3C--.yrsj; _  

S/o S Boaraiah, R/a_ Kon.:is2tie"Vi1iege'-___ . '
Koppa Hob1i,Maddar'Taiu.1<.V"   "
Mandya District  i =

Respondent

(By Sri K N Mohan4,.iAdy{)" 

._  " .This.Ci*itfriini1i«}?etit.ioi1 is flied under $482 of the CLPC praying to set
aside the"order._d2itebd«30.6.2008 in CC 407/2006 before the JMFC, Maddur.

"'.Th'is;iCrirniun;:I tier'-r"'etition coming on for Admission this day, the Court

 " V ' made the.__fol1o.'w'ie1g}'

ORDER

i ‘Petitioner has sought for quashing the order passed by the JMFC,

on 30.6.2008 dismissing the application filed under S293, Cr.PC and

W,

to allow the application directing to refer the cheque for ascertaining the age of

signature. V.

According to the petitioner, application .is filed by him un.r_1er’~

Cr.PC before the Magistrate disputing the issuance of cheque, _si_atii’ng..i_ti*.—at’t§.;i_s”‘ _

cheque was issued long back and was being misused a.nd»to:”~ascerta«in the

cheque is of a particular year. The said application came toiibe rejected.’-.__ V.’ .i

In the order passed by the learned Magistrate, itgyisifi observed. that

defense of the accused is that the cheqiij’eVVii’r’.. question stolen by one

Govinda who has misused the same: it isalso’ obszerved that contentions could

be put forth by p–r’odL1ci”rigTangent “c.vici’en’ce’ through other means and it is not
necessary to send’-Eheichedue c–hVeirnical exarnination and, also observed that

once thesignature oni”tAh_eicheque is admitted, then sending the cheque for

iscientifiyc ie7iarinination._ only to ascertain whether it was of the year 1994 or

2005 t)’1″”‘-QCQZE) not arise.

up I do not find any error such committed by the learned Magistrate in

rcject.ing..the application by assigning the above reasons. In the circumstances,

h’

observed by the ieamed Magistrate, it is for the petitioner to take a defense

at the appropriate stage.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- t i 7

JUDgEt;tri

An