HARDEV KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION is allowed and Zimni Orders of the trial court, as reproduced in the application itself, are taken on record.

(2.) MAIN Case:

(3.) THE matter does not rest here. The petitioner, in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that blank cheque was signed by her in favour of the complainant as security. In this view of the matter also, the learned Appellate Court rightly observed that it would be of no use to examine the handwriting expert. It is also significant to notice that the petitioner wants that her specimen signatures be taken and sent for comparison. However, report (Annexure P -3) did not require the specimen signatures to be taken now for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signature. On the contrary, the report desired that some existing signatures, preferably on cheques and in the proximity of the period of questioned signature be sent for comparison. The petitioner, even now, has not made any such prayer for sending her admitted signatures of the kind required by the Expert for comparison. Thus, the petitioner is indulging in a futile dilatory tactic.