Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2013 (RAJ)

Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Karni Singh

2013-11-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.6.2013 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No. 1, Bikaner in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2646/2009, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for sending the disputed cheque to the FSL for seeking opinion regarding the age of the writings on the cheque in question was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had given a blank signed cheque to the complainant. He submits that the complainant had misused the cheque in question. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to seek opinion regarding the age of the writings on the cheque in question through the FSL so that the accused can defend himself properly. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 457 in support of his contentions and urges that the misc. petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Shri Shreekant Verma submits that the petitioner has come out with an entirely new case by way of a belated application filed after nearly six years of bouncing of the cheque. He submits that no reply to the notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was given the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has not mentioned in his application as to when the signed cheque was given by him to the complainant. He thus submits that the accused is not entitled to have the cheque sent to the FSL for the purpose of seeking an opinion regarding the age of the writings. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar, perused the order impugned as well as the documents filed on the record. 5. The cheque in question was dishonoured way back in the year 2006. Admittedly, the petitioner did not give any reply to the notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Even the application filed by the petitioner for sending the cheque to the hand writing expert does not mention as to when he gave the cheque to the complainant. The accused has not disputed the fact that the disputed cheque in question bears his genuine signatures and the same was advanced to the complainant by him. Even the application filed by the petitioner for sending the cheque to the hand writing expert does not mention as to when he gave the cheque to the complainant. The accused has not disputed the fact that the disputed cheque in question bears his genuine signatures and the same was advanced to the complainant by him. The dispute is regarding the amount of liability. The admitted case of the complainant at the trial is that the amount and date in the cheque were filled in by one Kanhaiya Lal who is known to the accused. In view of the fact that the accused himself has not taken any plea that the cheque was given at an anterior point of time and the complainant has belatedly filled the amount therein and misused the same, this Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement for sending the cheque in question to the FSL for assessment of the age of writings. As the accused himself has not proposed a case regarding there being any significant difference in the age of his signature and the age of the other writings, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the accused for sending the cheque to the FSL for seeking opinion regarding the age of the writings on the cheque. The facts of T. Nagappa's case (surpa) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely different and distinguishable from the facts of the present case.Resultantly, the misc. petition as well as the stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******