Surender Sharma vs Nek Ram Verma

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present petition has been maintained by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting

aside the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Shimla, H.P. in Cr. Revision No.6Â​S/10 of 2018.

Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/complainant (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘respondent’)

filed a compaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P. It has been alleged

that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and the petitioner/accused was summoned. Notice of Acquisition was also framed and the

petitioner pleaded not guilty and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence on behalf of the complainant/respondent. The complainant was examined

on 18.03.2017 and thereafter the evidence on behalf of complainant was closed.

As per the petitioner, his case is that he has not filled in the cheque (CWÂ1A), except the signatures in the alleged cheque and the cheque was

given as a security money to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/Â to the complainant, which was later on misused by the complainant/respondent by filing fake

complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

It has been alleged that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 45 and Section 73 of the Evidence Act read with Section 311 of

Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla for sending the alleged cheque to the handwriting and ink expert,

however, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on 16.2.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a

Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 16.2.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Shimla before the learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Shimla and the same was dismissed on 04.8.2018.

The learned trial Court vide order dated 16.2.2018, dismissed the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, he maintained the revision petition before

the learned Lower Revisional Court and filed a criminal revision petitioner under Section 397 of the Code, which was also dismissed. The petitioner

wants to prove on record by way of application that he has not filled the cheque.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been deprived of by the valuable right to examine the figure mentioned in the disputed cheque

from the handwriting expert. As per him, the figure was wrongly mentioned by the complainant.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has admitted that he has issued the cheque in question and

also admitted his signatures on it, hence, no case can be made out against him. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has

argued that the petitioner has commited a serious offence and that the offence is not compoundable, so, the petition may be dismissed.

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

The impugned order dated 16.2.2018 of the learned trial Court is to the effect that the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 45

and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call the report of handwriting expert whether handwritten

portion of the cheque in question, except signatures is written by the petitioner or whether the ink used in the signatures and the ink used in filling the

name of bearer and amount in words as well as figure are different and the age of the ink used to put the signatures in the cheque.

Now, the question arises; whether it is an ingtermediate order and on its reversal in this revision, the procedings would culminate in entirety? Even

if, the contention of the revision petitioner is accepted, as correct, and the revision petition is allowed, still the proceedings before the learned trial

Court will not come to an end. Even if, it is assumed that the plea of petitioner is accepted and his revision is allowed, so, the impugned order is purely

interlocutory in nature and the revision against it is not maintainable.

The accused while answering Question No.7 of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:Â​

“Q.No.7.

It has further come in the evidence of the complainant led against you accused that on 14.01.2015, you accused issued and executed Cheque

No.027548 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/Â (Ext. CWÂ1/A) in favour of the complainant against your Account No.100028246375, drawn on IndusInd

Bank Limited, Shimla Branch, the Mall, Shimla, H.P. What you have to state about it?

Ans.

“Cheque Maine Khali Hastakshar Karke Rs.2,50,000/Â​ Ke Liye Diya thaa.â€​

It means that the petitioner has admitted that he has issued the cheque, but for Rs.2,50,000/Â and has admitted his signatures on the cheque. So,

when he has admitted the signatures on the negotiable instrument, no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the same to the handwriting expert. It

is further to be noted that he has admitted his signatures on the cheque, in these circumstanes, this Court finds that there is no reason to inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Revisional

Court are in accordance with law. So, these needs no intereference. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal and is accordingly

dismissed. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Learned Court below on 25th July, 2019.

Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.