Judgment:
M.Cr.C.No.934/2014 M.Cr.C.No.934/2014 3.2.2014 Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the applicant.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has challenged the order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Bareli, District Raisen in R.T.No.345/2010, whereby the application of the applicant relating to calling of some witnesses was disallowed.
The applicant has also challenged the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in criminal revision No.55/2013, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the applicant purchased a tractor from the complainant and therefore, a cheque of Rs.3,98,000/- was issued, which was dishonoured.
The complaint was filed.
At present, the applicant has moved an application that the tractor was taken by the brother of the complainant and therefore, two witnesses may be examined for that purpose.
The application was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and considering M.Cr.C.No.934/2014 the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that in a subsequent stage, brother of the complainant took the tractor from the possession of the applicant then, it is not a defence in the eye of law, where cheque issued by the applicant was dishonoured and therefore, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the application of the applicant.
If subsequently, the brother of the respondent took the tractor from the possession of the applicant then, it has no concern with the complaint relating to dishonour of cheque.
There is no basis by which the present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant Narendra Kirar may be accepted.
Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra