RAJKUMAR Vs. SAVENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in CRR No.613/2019 whereby the order dtd. 3/9/2019 passed in Criminal Case No.29271/2015 passed by JMFC, Indore has been affirmed the order of the learned trial Court allowing the application under Sec. 254(2) of Cr.P.C., hence, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner advanced a long to the respondent to the tune of Rs.06.00Lacs and through cheque bearing no.000086 dtd. 1/6/2012. Thereafter, a partial payment was made to the petitioner for discharge of liability and cheque no.000061 dtd. 25/5/2015 for Rs.6,30,000.00 was issued by the respondent and on being presented, the same was dishonored. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent and filed a case under the provisions of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, at the stage of defense of respondent, he filed an application under Sec. 254(2) of Cr.P.C. intending to examine handwriting expert in the matter to verify the handwriting on the cheque and to the said application, the petitioner has filed his reply by submitting that the respondent has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and therefore, under Sec. 20 of the N.I. Act, it is immaterial that who has written or fill up the cheque. The learned trial Court without considering the material and prescribed law, allowed the application vide order dtd. 23/1/2019 and on revision, the learned revisional Court has also affirmed the order of the learned JMFC vide the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in law and facts in allowing the application of the respondent filed under Sec. 254 (2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Courts below have erred in law in holding that respondent ought to have been granted opportunity of examination the hand writing expert. it is also submitted that in the present case, the respondent has admitted the fact of issuance of cheque and and his signature on the cheque, hence, appointment of handwriting expert is not at all required. It is also submitted that under Sec. 20 of N.I. Act, the authority of filling up the cheque has been given to the receiver of the cheque and hence, in such situation, the learned Courts below have erred in allowing the application of the respondent. In application preferred under Sec. 284(2) of Cr.P.C. no specific reason has been mentioned or and by handwriting report of the expert is necessary.