Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 697 (RAJ)

Rampal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. The matter comes up on an application (CRLMA No.219/2015) for taking certain documents on record. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application (CRLMA No.219/2015) is allowed and the documents annexed with the application (CRLMA No.219/2015) be placed on record. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this criminal misc. petition is heard on merits and is being decided. 4. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No.3/2012, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate (CBI Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.1303/2010, has been dismissed. The trial court vide order dated 04.05.2012, has rejected two applications of the petitioner, one filed for quashing of the order of cognizance passed by the trial court and another filed under Sections 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for examination of writings and signature on the same. 5. In this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner is raising grievance against the order passed by the trial court up to the extent it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have grossly erred in not accepting the prayer of the petitioner for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of writings as well as the signature on the same. It is contended that the defence of the petitioner before the trial court is this that the brother-in-law of the petitioner viz. Brij Mohan has stolen the signed cheques of the petitioner and thereafter, handed it over to the complainant. It is contended that the petitioner has claimed before the trial court that he has never issued any cheque to the complainant at any point of time as he was under no liability to pay legal enforceable debt to him. Brij Mohan has stolen the signed cheques of the petitioner and thereafter, handed it over to the complainant. It is contended that the petitioner has claimed before the trial court that he has never issued any cheque to the complainant at any point of time as he was under no liability to pay legal enforceable debt to him. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the blank signed cheques of the petitioner, he had filed an FIR at Police Station, Baldev Nagar, District Ambala, Haryana on 11.11.2007 against his brother-in-law and one Rishab Kumar Jain and Haryana police, after thorough investigation had filed charge-sheet against the accused persons in that FIR. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of rebutting the allegations of the complainant, the petitioner is required to get the handwriting on the cheque in question examined by the expert. 7. In respect of the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in O.P. Sharma v. Ashok Bohara reported in 2012(1) RJT 406. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 9. The trial court, while taking into consideration the prayer of the petitioner for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for examination of writing as well as the signature on the same, has observed that the cheque in question has not been returned by the bank to the complainant on account of dissimilarity in the signature. It is also observed by the trial court that as per averments made in the application by the petitioner that he and his brother-in-law used to do business together from the year 2001 to 2007 and the cheque in question is of October 2007, therefore, the possibility of misusing the old cheque of the petitioner is not borne out from the bare reading of application, hence, there is no requirement of sending the cheque in question for examination by the handwriting expert for the purpose of ascertaining the age of handwritings. The trial court has also taken into consideration several decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, wherein it is held that when the cheque in question has not been returned for the reasons of dissimilarity in signature, it is not necessary to send the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert at the request of accused. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for comparing of handwriting and signature. The contention of the petitioner that he has filed a criminal complaint against his brother-in-law at Ambala while alleging that some of the blank cheques signed by him have been misused by his brother-in- law and other persons, it is noticed that in that FIR, there is no allegation to the effect that his brother-in-law has handed over any blank signed cheque of the petitioner to the complainant - Dinesh Soni at any point of time. Had it been the case of the petitioner that his blank signed cheques have been given to the complainant by his brother-in-law, he would have alleged the same in the FIR filed by him against his brother-in-law and another person in Ambala. 11. This Court is also of the opinion that the trial court has rightly observed that when the cheque in question has not been returned by the bank for the reason of dissimilarity in the signature of the petitioner, it is not necessary to send the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert for examination on the request of the accused. 12. So far as regarding the judgment passed by this Court in O.P. Sharma's case (supra) is concerned, the facts of the said case are quite different. In the said case, the dispute was regarding the examination of signature done by overwriting in the amount mentioned in the cheque. The accused had specifically contended before the trial court that he had borrowed only Rs.20,000/- from the complainant, however, the complainant by overwriting in the cheque, has changed the amount mentioned. In the said case, the dispute was regarding the examination of signature done by overwriting in the amount mentioned in the cheque. The accused had specifically contended before the trial court that he had borrowed only Rs.20,000/- from the complainant, however, the complainant by overwriting in the cheque, has changed the amount mentioned. In the above referred case, the accused did not deny his signatures on the cheque but has questioned the signature under the overwriting amount and in that circumstances, this Court had observed that for the purpose of examining whether amount shown in the cheque was corrected by the accused or not and whether signatures under the overwriting amount were of accused or not, it is necessary that the disputed cheque be sent for examination by the handwriting expert. 13. In the present case the petitioner has not disputed his signature on the cheque but has claimed that he has not issued the cheque to the complainant and his blank signed cheque was given to him by his brother-in-law. It is for the petitioner to prove before the trial court that the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant by him and was given to the complainant by his brother-in-law and for that purpose the handwriting and signature on the cheque are not required to be examined by the handwriting expert. 14. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 15. Stay petition also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.