Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 16809 MP
Judgement Date : 19 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33755 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KRISHNA SAKH SAHKARITA MARYADIT MANDSAUR
THROUGH MANAGER NEHA W/O SUMIT MITTAL, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O SATYAM VIHAR BEHIND AMBA
PALACE, MANDSAUR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VIRENDRA THAKUR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
ANOOP S/O RAKESH MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, R/O GANAPATI MARG NEAR SITLAMATA
MANDIR MANDSAUR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( NONE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
This application has been filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 13.06.2022, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur in Criminal Appeal No.54/2022, whereby order dated 21/03/2022, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur in Special Case No.SCNIA No.1402155/2015 allowing applicant's criminal complaint Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-12-2022 12:03:22
filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was set aside.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide judgment Court dated 21/03/2022, passed by the learned trial Court, complaint was filed by the competent authority but no authority letter was shown by him. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge Mandsaur is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned appellate Court has passed the judgment of acquittal of respondent only on the basis of presumption and conjectures. There is no pleading of evidence that no documentary or oral evidence has been adduced by the applicant regarding loan taken from them said Society. It is also submitted that only photocopy as secondary evidence was produced. The
learned trial Court vide impugned judgment has held that the disputed cheque was not produced in original, further cheque is seemed to be drawn for a higher amount and the complainant has failed to prove that he gave loan to the respondent.
On due consideration of the impugned judgment and reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing. Accordingly, application filed by the applicant under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.
Office is directed to register the same as criminal appeal. Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered and proceeded as per rules, as admitted.
Let a bailable warrant inn the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against the non-applicant for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/01/2023.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-12-2022 12:03:22
With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. is allowed and is accordingly, disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE pn
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-12-2022 12:03:22
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!