Rajasthan High Court
Dinesh Garg S/O Sitaram Garg B/C ... vs Narendra Singh Rajawat S/O Shri ... on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5718/2019
Dinesh Garg S/o Sitaram Garg, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot
No.g-37, Keshav Nagar, Bajariya, Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Narendra Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Rajawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Village Mahaveer Nagar, In Front Of Anaj
Mandi, Alanpur Link Road, Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
02/11/2022
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated
28.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sawai
Madhopur in Criminal Case No.58/2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
filed an application before the trial court for giving the permission
regarding secondary evidence of notice sent by him to the
respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
trial court vide order dated 28.02.2018 rejected the application
filed by the petitioner and petitioner had filed the petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also submits that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 09.01.2020, allowed the petition filed by the
petitioner. Respondent challenged the said order before the Apex
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5718/2019]
Court. Apex Court had directed to decide the matter afresh, after
hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that petitioner sent the notice under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act to the respondent. Original notice was
available to the respondent but he had not produced before the
trial court. So, petitioner wants to exhibit the copy of notice as a
secondary evidence. So, permission be granted to the petitioner
for exhibiting the copy of document as a secondary evidence and
order of the trial court, be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgments in the case of Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri &
Ors; Civil Appeal No.13361/2015 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.29621/2014) passed by Supreme Court of India and S.
Sudarshan Vs. G. M. Sunil Kumar; Criminal Revision Petition
No.472/2016; AIR OnLine 2019 KAR 2821 passed by
Karnataka High Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner had not uttered a single word in his
evidence before the trial court regarding the notice. Evidence of
parties have been completed and matter is posted for final
argument. Therefore, no cause of action arises for allowing the
petition. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the judgment in the case of M/s Arati Bhargava Vs. Kavi
Kumar Bhargava (Deceased) through L.Rs.; IA
No.7662/1998 in Suit No.2973/1990 passed by Delhi High
Court and Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani; Civil
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5718/2019]
Appeal No.2060/2000(Arising out of SLP (C)
No.12625/2005) passed by Supreme Court of India.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.
It is an admitted position that original notice was sent to the
respondent. He had not produced the original document before
the trial court and petitioner wants to exhibit the copy of notice in
his evidence. In my considered opinion, trial court wrongly
dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So, order of the
trial court dated 28.02.2018 is set aside and trial court is directed
to take the record of copy of notice, as exhibit and proceed with
the matter.
Hence, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/76
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
