BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA Vs. ANIL KUMAR SANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected two applications, namely, application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and another under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2008, a criminal complaint was filed by the complainant against the petitioner with certain allegations of non-payment of the alleged amount of Rs.11,50,000/-. The learned trial Court on submission of the complaint took cognisance against the accused-petitioner and summoned the petitioner vide order dated 28.07.2008. The petitioner had filed two application one under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., and another under Section 73 of the Evidence Act for getting the cheque sent to the FSL report. However, vide order dated 19.11.2010, both the applications have been rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. R.P. Dadhich, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that, in order to buttress his case, the petitioner requires the bank statement to be produced. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioner that the cheque has been forged by the complainant. Therefore, the hand writing on the cheque needs to be examined by the FSL.