Bombay High Court
Damodhar Radhakisan Zanwar vs Darshan Shrikisanji Kalantri on 5 July, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
16.cwp.367.22.jud 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 2022
Petitioner : Damodhar Radhakisan Zanwar,
Aged about 40 yrs., Occu : Business,
R/o. Sabanpura, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
- Versus -
Respondent : Darshan Shrikisanji Kalanti,
Age about 35 yrs. Occu : Business,
R/o Pannalal Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE : 5th JULY, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
both sides.
02] The petitioner (accused) challenged the impugned order dated
01/12/2021 passed on Exh.94, by which the learned Magistrate has refused to
send the documents to the Government Handwriting Expert. The said order
was confirmed in revision, hence the challenge.
16.cwp.367.22.jud 2/3
03] The petitioner's learned Counsel would submit that earlier the
petitioner has applied for sending the documents to the Handwriting Expert
and it was allowed vide order dated 22/06/2018. Since the private
Handwriting Expert was not available, the petitioner was unable to comply
and, therefore, he has merely renewed the prayer, but the trial Court erred in
rejecting the same.
04] Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
(complainant) strongly opposed the application by contending that this
application is nothing but one more attempt to delay the proceeding. He took
me through paragraph 4 of the order passed in revision, which reflects the
instances as to how the matter has been delayed.
05] Undisputedly, the private complaint was filed in the year 2011 for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The complainant's evidence was completed in the year 2014 as well as the
statement of the petitioner (accused) was recorded in terms of Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 2014 itself. One does not know as
to how the proceeding has lingered for next four years. Anyhow vide order
dated 22/06/2018, the learned Magistrate has initially allowed the prayer for
sending the documents to private Handwriting Expert. However, the said
order appears to have not been complied. If the particular Handwriting
16.cwp.367.22.jud 3/3
Expert was not available, the petitioner could have sent it to someone else or
would have urged for sending the documents to the Government Handwriting
Expert within the proximity. However, it reveals from the record that despite
favourable order, the petitioner did nothing as well as remained absent which
has caused the Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrant on 22/11/2019. The
record indicates that on 15/09/2021, the non-bailable warrant was got
cancelled and thereafter the petitioner has come up with a new application
dated 18/11/2021 seeking to send the documents to the Government
Handwriting Expert. The litigating history loudly demonstrates that the
petitioner's act is nothing but to put the scope in the smooth progress of the
trial. Moreover, in 2013 itself, during cross-examination the complainant has
denied the signature and that was the time when the petitioner ought to have
applied for Expert's opinion. It is apparent that as and when the trial Court
started to proceed with the case, the petitioner has taken up the stale claim of
sending the matters to Handwriting Expert. Absolutely, there are no bona
fides and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and stands
dismissed accordingly.
06] The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of 10 years old case
within the period of three months from today. Rule stands discharged.
Signed by:SANDESH DAULATRAO
WAGHMARE
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
*sandesh Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Judge
Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:51
