JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Complainant Buta Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) challenging judgment dated 04.03.2013 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. 2. Petitioner instituted criminal complaint Annexure P-3 against respondents No.2 to 4 alleging inter alia that the complainant approached land mortgage bank in January, 2006 to raise loan. The complainant was introduced to respondent No.2 who agreed to help the petitioner in sanction of loan. The complainant supplied necessary documents to respondent No.2. Signatures of complainant were obtained by respondent No.2 on some blank papers, including stamp papers and printed papers. In February 2006, the complainant was informed that the loan had been sanctioned. Respondent No.2 demanded Rs.40,000/- as commission, which was excessive. The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 demanded the balance amount of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant refused. Respondent No.2 filed a civil suit on the basis of agreement to sell land allegedly executed by the complainant. Respondents No.3 and 4 are witnesses of the said agreement. The complainant’s case is that the said agreement was never executed by him and the same has been forged and fabricated by respondents No.2 to 4. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), after perusing preliminary evidence led by the petitioner-complainant, ordered summoning of all the three accused for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. However, the said order has been successfully challenged by respondents No.2 to 4 by filing revision petition, which has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 04.03.2013 Annexure P-1 and summoning order passed by the Magistrate has been set aside and the complaint instituted by the petitioner has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed this petition to challenge the said judgment Annexure P-1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that handwriting expert has stated that alleged signatures of the petitioner on the agreement are forged ones as opined by handwriting expert and therefore, respondents No.2 to 4 were rightly summoned by the trial Magistrate. 6. Aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Suit filed by respondent No.2 on the basis of the impugned agreement has already been decreed by the civil Court. 6. Aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Suit filed by respondent No.2 on the basis of the impugned agreement has already been decreed by the civil Court. The petitioner complainant has lost the said litigation up to this Court as submitted by counsel for the petitioner. Thus execution and validity of the agreement in question has been upheld in the civil suit. 7. In these circumstances, the prosecution of respondent No.2 to 4 by way of instant complaint Annexure P-3 for alleged forgery of the impugned agreement is completely meritless, frivolous and vexatious and the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the revisional Court. 8. In addition to the aforesaid, science of handwriting comparison is not a perfect science. It has often been observed that handwriting experts give contradictory opinion in favour of the party engaging them. Moreover, the complainant-petitioner has himself alleged that his signatures had been obtained by respondent No.2 on several blank papers including stamp papers. The compliant thus impliedly admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement and therefore, on the basis of report or opinion of handwriting expert, it cannot be said that signatures of the complainant on the impugned agreement had been forged. 9. Thus examined from any angle, there is no ground for proceeding against respondents No.2 to 4 for any offence. Impugned judgment of the revisional Court does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition Instant petition is completely meritless and frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------