Inderjit Nagpal and Another vs Madhu Sayal

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 02.01.2012 (Annexure P- 4) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala vide which application dated 22.11.2011 filed by respondent-complainant to examine Document Expert by way of additional evidence has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.

Brief allegations are that respondent has filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners on the plea that present petitioners purchased material from respondent and in order to discharge the liability, issued a cheque for Rs. 3,30,000 dated 06.10.2009. The said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Petitioner No. 1 has taken a specific plea that the said cheque was not signed by him. However, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds. Banker of petitioners did not raise any objection regarding authenticity of signature of petitioner No. 1 on the said cheque. However, a plea has been taken by the petitioner No. 1 that the cheque does not contain his signature.

An application has been moved on behalf of the complainant for examining Hand-writing and Finger Prints Expert to examine disputed writing and signature of petitioner No. 1 on the disputed cheque with his admitted writing and signature, which was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application is belated one as the same was filed after evidence of complainant was already closed and statements of petitioners u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. Hence, it is contended that respondentcomplainant cannot be permitted to fill lacuna in his case

However, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that evidence sought to be adduced is essential for the just decision of the case as though no objection regarding signature of petitioner No. 1 on the disputed cheque was raised by the banker, signature has been disputed by petitioner No. 1.

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present petition and hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.