UMA SHANKAR VISHWAKARMA Vs. GEETA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a petition under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code by the opposite party, claiming to be the wife of the applicant, the applicant has been directed by the VI Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi, as per his order dated 31-3-1983 to give his specimen signature by the next date for experts opinion. This has been done on the prayer of the opposite party, who applied that of the present applicant has denied his signature on the alleged application given by him his signature may be obtained, so that expertTs opinion regarding the disputed signature may be obtained.

(2.) It is alleged in the present application that the applicant is facing a trial under Section 494, Indian Penal Code also and it will amount to compelling him to be a witness against himself and it is urged that the applicant is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution in the matter and his objection to give a specimen signature in the proceeding should have been upheld, because that very specimen signature may also be later used in the proceeding under Section 494, Indian Penal Code for proving the alleged earlier marriage with the present opposite party. The objection was over ruled by the Magistrate and the order of the Magistrate has been upheld by the revisional court. The prayer is that the orders in question he quashed.

(3.) The proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code is of a quasi civil nature, though under the Criminal Procedure Code that proceeding does not relate to any prosecution for any offence, nor the position of the applicant in that proceeding is that of an accused person. It is, however, urged that the position of the accused in the other case under Section 494, Indian Penal Code is that of an accused and the protection is being sought on that consideration, though he may not be an accused in the proceeding under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance has been placed by the applicant upon the case of Nandani Satpathi v. P.L. Dani1. It has been held in that case that the prohibitive sweep of Article 20(3) of the Constitution goes back to the stage of police investigation not commencing in court only and the protection is with regard to other offences also pending or eminent which may deter the accused from voluntary disclosure of criminatory matter. Reliance is also placed upon the case of Raj Narain Lal v. M. P. Mistri2 observing it has been held that the said constitutional protection is not confined only to criminal cases, but it extends even to civil proceedings.