Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 864 (MP)

PRAKASH KHANDELWAL v. GHANSHYAM DAS DHAMEJA

2013-07-25

D.K.PALIWAL

body2013
ORDER : D.K. PALIWAL, J. 1. This petition has been filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by J.M.F.C. Gwalior (M.P.) in case No. 4530/2010 whereby the petitioner has been directed to give signature. The brief facts of the case are that non-applicant filed a private complaint under Sections 418, 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. alleging that the petitioner who is a President of District Congress Party influenced the non-applicant to join Bhartiya Gramin Vikas Sansthan and the complainant was made treasurer of the said society. The said society worked since 1994 till 1998. As such the relation between the applicant and non-applicant were very cordial. It is further stated that due to inducement of the petitioner that there is some land lying vacant in between Chetakpuri & Basant Vihar and a colony can be developed, the complainant asked his friends to book plots and for the purpose Rs. 50,000/- was received from Rajkumar Jai Singhani. An account was also opened at State Bank of India, Branch Tansen Road, Gwalior (M.P.) in the name of Nirman and Vikas Sansthan. The petitioner has received deposits from various persons, but no plot has been given. The learned trial Court after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Certain documents were also filed before the learned Court below and when the petitioner appeared before the learned Court below, he moved an application u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying for calling the report of handwriting expert as regards receipt dated 19.02.1995, diary and certain Bundles. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court and record was called from Rajkumar Shrotriya. The said report was submitted on 05.02.2011. Subsequently one application was moved by the non-applicant for calling the handwriting expert report from Government Department. The application was allowed by the learned trial Court and the documents were sent to State Examiner of Questioned Documents Government of M.P. After receipt of the documents a letter was issued from the State Examiner of Questioned Documents Government of M.P. dated 21.02.2012 and in the light of it, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear before the Court and give his signatures as disputed signatures on. six papers, six times each and thereafter Ex. six papers, six times each and thereafter Ex. P-1 to P-6 alongwith the freshly signed documents be remitted back to State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Being aggrieved of the direction of the learned trial Court dated 29.11.2012 the petitioner has preferred this petition. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that direction of the learned trial Court is clearly against the mandate of law and if the same is allowed to stand, it would amount to gross injustice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the accused cannot be forced to give incriminating evidence and the order of the learned trial Court suffers from this error. It is prayed that petition be allowed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that u/s 311(A) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is competent to direct the accused to give his signatures. 4. I have perused the record. It appears that handwriting expert Raj Kumar Shrotriya has submitted the report regarding the disputed signature on 05.02.2011. The respondent did not agree with the report. It is prayed that the disputed signature would be directed to be examined by an. handwriting expert of Police Headquarters Jahangirabad Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This prayer was allowed and the correspondence was made by the learned J.M.F.C. In response to correspondence, the state Examiner of Questioned Documents Government of M.P. Jahangirabad vide letter No. CID/QD/Dx-03/12/95/12 dated 21.02.2012 requested to complete the required formalities. In pursuance of this letter, the learned J.M.F.C. has directed the petitioner to give his signatures as disputed signatures on six papers six times each. 5. So far as power of the Magistrate to order a person to give signatures is concerned, Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the code to order any person for giving specimen signatures and handwriting. Section 311(A) reads as under: If a Magistrate of the First Class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting. Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. 6. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that accused person can be directed to give specimen signatures or handwriting. However this provision does not empower the Magistrate to direct the accused to give signatures as similar as disputed signatures. 7. Thus, direction of the learned Magistrate to the petitioner to give his signatures similar to disputed signatures is not in consonance with the provision of Section 311(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is accused, cannot be compelled to give incriminating evidence. 8. In view of the above analysis, the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. appears to be contrary to law and can not be approved. Consequently the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Disposed Off.