E43 TIE; HIGH COURT QF KARNATAKA
cmcvn' BENCH AT DHARWAD . j .
Dated this the {Om day of February' v '
$35 HO]\="'BLEMR JUSTZC ;'~.;:i};; :;%?:4Df"cj; 2-?_.z,:ME:§';~
Criminal Pe£m;§f:'~7439z2'0o3 '
Batwecn:
RUPESI-I 35:3;
mm ABQU'ii;3"1 _ * " 5
we Bf'¥LGIh?i=AE*?E " '-
YELLA§UR-- A? ~ %
' ?E"I'1Ti€_)"NER
{By Sm: : siaazsm ADV FOR Sr£.R L Pam, ADV)
A *- GMAP-;§f"f}§1 E¥§}&£§}ESH gm':
gaafin ABOVE?-_T.:T1'39 YEARS
acc: B{\:si:»fgss
RSO :¢.5.ANDmm:~s§
u YELLA:-91;rR
V. 's;'1i*:f5.RA KANNADA RESPQNDENI
" Q35; : RAVI G SAEHAEHF, ADV}
CRL.P mm (HS. 2132 OF CRRC BY TEE Aavocafsg FOR
TEE PE'I'ITION3EZR PRAYBQG ma? THIS H()N'BLE CC)UR'f'MA'x'
BF. PLEASED TO QUASH -"rm ORDER m.17.10.290g.:éASSi3D'By
'I'}E~§ 3m:t::., 'Y"£LLAP'{§R IN cc. No.30£':'07 AND_._To iégégfiijs
GKER APPROPRIATE ORDER.
THIS cR:M3NAL PE"I"I"I'I(Z}N :02§TT»§0R:";«3j}.§flsSrs:g Y
THIS mac: Tm COURT i\zIADE.*"£'}.{_~$ FoLLGwB¢G:V-''--'A :. ,:
'ORDER "
Respon€§ent- compiéixzgnt zi jéigainst t31éV'peiitioner for the
offence under Section 138 lfiéégfitizfbié Act. After taking
cagttizimzze and afief:i=3¢ordihg_.§v;bni staternsnt, process was issued.
2. Accbzgiing to thélfinzpiainang the petitioner had bormweci 3 sum
cf 'f{rr.£1;§_&§urchase cf a icrry and in this regzsxd, he had
~ ;i'sisz1¢d .3 unt ."' the pendency af {ha matter, an LA. was filed by the
' "'_ 3C%.}'¢i§€{§ stating that there is {angering and iznseriion sf wardings in the
= ._--.;;hs:qus issued and tha crriginai ammmt is eniy Rs.24,325f~ and not
V
Rs.l,24,3l5f« which is inserted in 3 different ink. It is finther _submitted
that there is no enforceable debt to the tune of Rs.l,24,315/- by
the complainant. According to the Ieamed counsel for__tl:ie
petitioner was ready to bear the cost, if thefleheque were "to:l2e referred to Z3!' .
handwriting expert seeking his opiuion:--A ieed
manipulation. it i it i ii i
3. Per contra, the learned respondent
submitted am’ there is preeuii¥ptio;li era; complainant, but it is
for the petitionerto disproVei_ the accused had
borrowed _:hé” iti:5£;{)!1_I_i1;’:vtf(}r._itli$___ purpose of purchase of a lorry and
accordingly eubxuitted enforceable debt. It isialso submitted
l2i13t;%’;i’t’s’:’. petitioner’ thedrespondent are friends, the petitioner borrowed
. * iziioneyiefrorrii’ the resporident and the difference of opinion arose between
-._ the petitioner failed to pay the amount.
4. as it may, although the petitioner has contended that there
eirisextcion of wozdings in the cheque subsequeatly for unlawful gain in 3
ink, in my opinion, may be it is a difierent inle but if there ie
-“subsequent insertion than What is agreed between the parties, if there is
any manipuiation, that could be a matter of evidence. However, for the
mar
present, since the petitioner is seeking the opinion of the
instrument regarding insertion or manipuiation, the same’ x?_§)ui€i{béL’d%1:ic V’ 2.
the leamed Magstrase at the cost of time pefi§iorx=:~:r.«_
5. Accordingly, the petition is Taligwad; “£h_e’ irnpugaxéfi pzisseki ;
{he lcamed Magisiratc is quashed yganér-i.§}}e::iin§’g back to the
Magistrate with a directiorgifl abtain the
opinion as Sfiiight for and Expert ta cross-
exarnination at the ef tfm needfui in accordance
with law. ‘ i V . ‘ V. 4′
Bowgver, £115’ v’£}}}.fiI1i{);Ii”‘f1_3!’iii_Sh{‘5d by the Expert wouid not gang; in
mm: 94*.» L<'r~'5&'-.– ~ ' . " . ' . .
T czmsidfizmg the prgyer of the aamplamant, if there IS mam m
_ ,1»-W
his €::?x.~,,€igi. riff» C».<..c»~–~a- fir-K, c
5d/1:
.Tu%dcj’éf’