PAWAN KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs KAPIL DEV(Not Applicable) — CR.R/161/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438 & 442. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010136852026

Filing Number

CR.R/1892/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

CR.R/161/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438 & 442

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PAWAN KUMAR(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Surender K. Sharma,Anita Parmar,Anita Parmar, ,Anita Parmar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAPIL DEV(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

    Summary: The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed Pawan Kumar's revision petition against the trial court's order rejecting his application for handwriting comparison in a cheque bounce case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act). The court held that orders dismissing applications for additional evidence are purely interlocutory and not amenable to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. Additionally, the trial court properly rejected the application as premature, noting the accused failed to produce admitted handwriting samples, did not examine his father (who allegedly witnessed the cheque handover), and provided no satisfactory explanation for how the complainant obtained the cheque. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR.R/161/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed Pawan Kumar's revision petition against the trial court's order rejecting his application for handwriting comparison in a cheque bounce case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act). The court held that orders dismissing applications for additional evidence are purely interlocutory and not amenable to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. Additionally, the trial court properly rejected the application as premature, noting the accused failed to produce admitted handwriting samples, did not examine his father (who allegedly witnessed the cheque handover), and provided no satisfactory explanation for how the complainant obtained the cheque. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case