BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner accused assailing the orders dated 1.2.2013 and 18.5.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Complaint Case No.18/2003 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the examination of the cheques in dispute by the FSL after taking the specimen signatures of the petitioner accused.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 Ganesh Lal filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 and 406, IPC with the allegations that the petitioner forged the cheques No.12714 and 11164 of the complainant " s account and misutilised the same. The complaint was filed in the court on 7.10.2004. The learned trial Court registered the complaint and directed proceedings under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. By order dated 2.5.2008, the matter was sent to the Police Station Rajnagar for inquiry. The Investigating Officer submitted an inquiry/investigation report in the court on 5.11.2008 observing that the complainant has alleged that the cuttings were made in the cheques and the names etc. were filled in by the accused. This fact could be verified only by having the cheques examined through the FSL. Vide order dated 28.1.2012, the SHO Police Station Rajnagar informed the court that the cheques were available in the court in some other proceedings and thus, FSL examination could not be conducted. Upon receiving the said information, the trial Court vod 28.1.2012 directed the Investigating Officer to procure the original cheques from the court concerned so that the same could be forwarded to the FSL. The complainant Ganesh Lal filed an application in the trial Court stating therein that the matter was pending for the last 4 years for procuring the FSL report. The Investigating Officer had not forwarded the cheques to the FSL and thus, the cheques in question be summoned and be forwarded to the FSL. The trial Court vide order dated 1.2.2013 accepted the prayer and directed that the cheques in question be summoned. By order dated 18.5.2013, the learned trial Court instructed the SHO Police Station Rajnagar to procure the specimen signature of Babu Lal the petitioner and Hastimal Chaplot and thereafter, forward the specimen signatures along with the cheques in question to the FSL for comparison by the handwriting expert. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner Babu Lal had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act on 2.11.2004 in relation to the same cheques No.12714 and 11164 against the respondent No.2 Ganesh Lal. A Civil Suit was also instituted by the petitioner for the amount of the cheques from Ganesh Lal on 22.8.2007. The complainant respondent No.2 while filing a written statement in the said civil suit mentioned about the pendency of the criminal case in additional pleas made at page 4 of the written statement. He filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act in the aforesaid civil suit and requested that both the cheques be sent to the FSL for comparison. The Civil Court rejected the application vide order dated 5.4.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 complainant filed another application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act before the Civil Court praying that the opinion of the expert be obtained in respect of the signatures of the writings on the cheques in question. The Civil Court rejected the said prayer by order dated 18.9.2013. The complainant preferred a writ petition No.12097/2013 against the said order and this Court vide order dated 1.10.2013 dismissed the said writ petition in limine.

(3.) Shri S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has played fraud with the court and concealing material facts i.e. the pendency of the civil suit and the passing of the adverse orders by the Civil Court, he managed to pursuade the court to direct forwarding of the cheques in question to the FSL without any justification. He contended that neither was the court apprised about the pendency of the complaint filed against him under Section 138 of the N.I.Act nor about the civil suit which was being contested by the complainant. He submitted that the complainant also concealed the fact that a prayer similar to the one made before the criminal court was also made before the civil court which proved unsuccessful. Concealing the fact of the rejection of such application, the complainant has misused the process of court by filing the application for forwarding the cheques in question to the FSL and fraudulently misled the court into accepting the same. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders as well as all the proceedings of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 complainant before the trial Court deserves to be quashed.