Smt. Meena W/O. Sudhakar Pajai vs Kishor Shankarrao Dabale And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1905 Bom

        J-cwp991.16.odt                                                                                                1/2    


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.991 OF 2016


        Smt. Meena w/o. Sudhakar Pajai,
        Aged about : Major,
        Occupation : Service,
        R/o. Plot No.54, Shirdi Nagar,
        Behind Sai Mandir,
        Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur                                                       :      PETITIONER

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    Kishor Shankarrao Dabale,
               Aged about 45 years,
               Occupation : Private,
               R/o. Plot No.18, Lane No.4,
               Vishwakarma Nagar, Nagpur.

        2.    The State of Maharashtra,
               through Police Station Officer,
               Ajani, Nagpur City.                                                   :      RESPONDENTS

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri R.S. Naktode, Advocate for the Petitioner.
        None for Respondent No.1.
        Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 20 APRIL, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1 though

duly served with the notice of final disposal at the admission stage.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

J-cwp991.16.odt 2/2

4. On going through the impugned order, which gives the

reason for rejecting the application vide Exh.-11 seeking sending of some

documents which are four deposit slips to the hand writing expert to give

his opinion about handwriting and signature appearing thereon, I am of

the view that the order is perverse. The reason for rejection of this

application is that all these documents i.e. deposit slips are exhibited and

a no objection of any kind has been raised in respect of these documents.

However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact

is that none of these documents is exhibited nor is it the case of the

complainant that the complainant admits these documents. On the

contrary, the statements made by the complainant during the course of

his cross-examination sufficiently indicate that these documents are not

admitted by the complainant. The impugned order is, therefore,

perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter

is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application vide

Exh.-11 afresh in accordance with law.

6. The parties to appear before the trial Court on the date

already fixed in the matter.

7. Rule is made absolute in these terms.

JUDGE

okMksns