AUM OIL Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of order dtd. 6/2/2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby the application filed by the petitioner, seeking permission to examine the handwriting and fingerprint expert and allow him to take photographs of the relevant writing/ signatures for comparison, was dismissed, in the case stemming from criminal complaint dtd. 24/7/2015 registered under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter NI Act').

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that petitioner No.2 is operating a petrol pump in the name of Aum Oil (petitioner No.1) on Sirsal Road, Habri, Kaithal, since July, 2009. Since the parties had a friendly relation, petitioner No.2 and her husband borrowed Rs.10,00,000.00 from the respondent-complainant to facilitate smooth functioning of the business. In order to discharge their legal liability, petitioner No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.365030 dtd. 19/5/2015 for Rs.10,00,000.00 in favour of the respondent. However, on presentation for encashment, the same was dishonoured vide memo dtd. 19/5/2015, with remarks- exceed arrangement.' Consequently, a legal notice dtd. 10/6/2015 was served on petitioner No.2. Since she failed to make the requisite payment within the stipulated time, complaint(supra) was instituted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the affairs of the said petrol pump were being managed by one Gulab Singh. On 30/9/2014, when petitioner No.2 and her husband approached Gulab Singh to obtain the accounts, it was discovered that he had misappropriated funds. Gulab Singh neither handed over the complete record of accounts nor returned the blank cheques signed by petitioner No.2. Consequently, FIR No.361 dtd. 12/12/2015 was registered against Gulab Singh and two other employees, under Ss. 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Pundri. Subsequently, Gulab Singh fraudulently issued the said blank cheques to his relatives, including cheque (Supra). As such, an application was moved before the learned trial Court, seeking permission for comparing handwriting/signatures of Gulab Singh, Anil Kumar and Subhash Chand in relation to the disputed cheque. Moreover, the petitioners have already been acquitted in the complaints filed by Satbir Singh, Hari Om Traders through its proprietor Gulab Singh and Satish Singh respectively (Annexure P-12 to P14). The learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the said application as comparison of handwriting/signatures is vital to just adjudication of the case.