Cheque bounce case – Quashing of criminal complaint -- Held, in exercise of revisional power, Court of Sessions or the High Court is not vested with the power of quashing a criminal complaint -- This power is available to the High Court alone under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can pass orders to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Cheque bounce case -- In revision petition, High Court is not to re-appreciate evidence like Court of an appeal -- Nothing has been argued to show that how the concurrent findings given by the Courts below are perverse or against the evidence or law -- Nothing has been pointed out which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Courts below -- Findings have been given after appreciating and reappreciating the evidence correctly and in right perspective -- Conviction passed by both the Courts below are correct, as per law and do not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Intermediatory order -- Application of complainant to examine two witnesses rejected by Magistrate -- It is an Intermediatory order and is clearly a revisable order -- In the scheme of hierarchy, the party should seek invocation from the lowest court if there is concurrent jurisdiction -- Petitioner should seek redressal of his grievance before Court of Session under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as it would be more appropriate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with order passed by trial court and upheld by appellate court is limited and revisional jurisdiction should be exercised in exceptional cases where there was some glaring defect in the procedure or there was a manifest error on a point of law and consequently, there had been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Scope of revision is limited to the extent of illegalities or infirmities committed by a court while answering the controversy – Plea of the accused that the cheques were stolen and forged do not merit any consideration for the reason that no evidence was led – There is presumption in favour of complainant and it was for accused to discharge such onus -- Contention that the complainant failed to discharge the onus of showing sufficient amount with him at the time of advancement of loan -- Not a single question has been addressed to the complainant in this regard in cross-examination -- Such issues are matters of evidence and need to be addressed at the earliest – Conviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.04.2015