2016 (9) TMI 1628 - HC - Indian Laws

Application filed by the accused for sending the cheques and acknowledgement receipt for FSL examination - demand of return of his cheques and passport kept as security - extortion of money from the petitioner through forged documents - grant of opportunity of rebuttal - criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or not - HELD THAT - This Court has already observed in several cases that once a document is referred to FSL or CFSL it normally takes four to five years in obtaining report. Since the complaint is pending since 2013 sending the cheque in question to the FSL would take another four to five years to bring the complaint for conclusion. In this case the signature on the cheques is not disputed. Such an approach of the petitioner cannot be appreciated as it would tantamount to further delay of the conclusion of the complaint case. The complaint case was fixed for defence evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar 2008 (4) TMI 789 - SUPREME COURT in which it was observed that it is the accused who knows how to prove his defence and the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused under sub-section (2) of Section 243 is bona fide or not - the petitioner cannot get any assistance from the judgment in the case of T. Nagappa. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 for setting aside order in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate related to a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner alleged that after repaying a loan to the respondent along with interest, the cheques and passport provided as security were not returned, and the respondent tried to extort money through forged documents. The respondent, in turn, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, claiming dishonored cheques and friendly loans given to the petitioner. The petitioner raised concerns about manipulated receipts and requested forensic examination of the cheques to determine authenticity. The petitioner relied on the T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar case, arguing for the right to defend and prove innocence with FSL report. However, the court noted that sending the cheques for forensic examination would cause significant delays in concluding the case, as the signatures were not disputed, and the complaint was already pending since 2013. The court emphasized that the accused should be allowed to approach the court for assistance but found no illegality in the lower court's order, ultimately dismissing the petition.