Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1332 (PNJ)

Dinesh Kumar Khanna v. State of Haryana

2012-09-28

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant D.S.Malik respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) filed a complaint (Annexure P1) against petitioner-accused Dinesh Kumar Khanna under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NI Act”) as amended by the Banking, Public, Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 (55 of 2002) and section 420 IPC in the Court of JMIC Gurgaon. 2. Having concluded the evidence of complainant, when the case was listed for defence evidence, then, the petitioner-accused moved an application (Annexure P2) to send the cheques to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (for short “the FSL”), Hyderabad to examine and to report about the age of ink used in writing on the cheques in question. 3. The application was dismissed by the trial Court, by way of impugned order dated 16.7.2012 (Annexure P3). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-accused preferred the present petition to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the examination of the indicated cheques by the FSL Hyderabad is essential to decide the case, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing the application (Annexure P2) of petitioner, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in case Kalyani Baskar v. M.S.Sampoornam, [2007(1) Law Herald (SC) 318] : 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 311 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that application for comparison of signatures cannot be rejected on the ground that the same was filed without naming any person as witness or anything to be summoned for the purpose of examination of cheque by handwriting expert. 7. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner-accused in the instant controversy. 8. 7. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner-accused in the instant controversy. 8. As is evident from the record, that the complainant filed a complaint (Annexure P1), inter-alia pleading that petitioner-accused issued the pointed three cheques to meet the liability of loan advanced to him by the complainant, which were dishonoured. The petitioner-accused has taken the defence that both the parties having business partnership and during the course of business, he issued the cheques in question to the complainant. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioneraccused has miserably failed to produce any document of partnership and he wanted to delay the disposal of the case, the trial Court dismissed his application (Annexure P2), by means of impugned order (Annexure P3). Even he has not placed on record any document to prove his partnership/business dealings with the complainant, particularly, when the fact of issuance of cheques by the petitioner-accused to complainant has not been disputed. Moreover, if the petitioner intends to disprove his signatures or writing on the impugned cheques, then, he may do so by examination of handwriting from the handwriting expert. There appears to be no occasion to send the indicated cheques to FSL Hyderabad. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of petitioner. 9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with in the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, so, the impugned order (Annexure P3) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. 11. Needless to mention that petitioner would be at liberty to produce the handwriting expert in order to prove his pointed defence.