1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1673 of 2010 Suresh Narayanrao Wankhede ..VERSUS.. Ramprasad Bhikamchandji Kalantri Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. J. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant Mr. N. R. Saboo, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 06 th April , 2011 . 1. Heard Mr. R. J. Mirza, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. N. R. Saboo, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. By the present application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is seeking quashment of the judgment and order dated 26/10/2009, below Exh.63, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1231/2008, which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 13/9/2010 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No. 195/2009. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the applicant is the accused in Criminal complaint case no. 1231/2008 and the non-applicant is the complainant. The non- applicant i.e. complainant had lodged the said criminal complaint against the applicant/accused for dishonour of cheque No. 815771 dated 15/4/2006 for an amount of Rs.70,000/-, issued by the 2 applicant in favour of the non-applicant. The learned J.M.F.C., Bhatkuli found prima facie case against the applicant and issued process. The non-applicant adduced his evidence. During his cross- examination, the applicant/accused filed an application (Exh.63) for sending the cheque in question to the Hand Writing Expert for ascertaining the handwriting of the contents of that cheque, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, a revision application was filed by the applicant/accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, which was also rejected by the learned Judge by order dated 13/9/2010. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the applicant is before this Court by the present criminal application. 4. Mr. Mirza, learned Advocate for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused in the cross-examination of the complainant brought on record that the complainant has stated that he is not aware as to who had written the contents of the cheque. It is also brought on record that the ink of the signature and other contents of the cheque was different and as such it was necessary to send the cheque and writing sample of the complainant and the accused to the Hand Writing Expert. The learned Advocate has further submitted that the applicant/accused has not admitted his signature and by forwarding the cheque to Hand Writing Expert, no prejudice would cause to the non-applicant/complainant. He has further submitted that by rejecting the application (Exh.63) and confirming the order of rejection by learned ASJ, Amravati, the applicant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to defend himself in trial. The learned Advocate has further submitted that both the courts below have ignored these facts and as such prays for indulgence at the hands of this Court. 3 5. Per contra, Mr. Saboo, learned Advocate for the non- applicant has strongly opposed the application. According to him, the applicant is proceeding on an assumption that he has not admitted the signature. The complainant was subjected to a detailed cross- examination by the applicant. Perusal of the cross-examination of the non-applicant/complainant would show that the applicant nowhere asked the complainant by giving a suggestion that the signature appearing on the cheque is not his signature. The tenor of the cross- examination reveals that the applicant has no dispute about the signature, but the dispute is only about the handwriting of contents of the cheque. Perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant further shows that there is no merit in the submission of learned Advocate for the applicant that the applicant has not admitted his signature. On the contrary, the applicant has admitted the signature. Mr. Saboo, learned Advocate has further submitted that the complaint is of the year 2006 and the applicant/accused is only trying to prolong the matter. Since 2006, much time has been lapsed and the proceeding is pending in view of the interim order passed by this Court and as such the further delay in the matter would certainly prejudice the non-applicant/complainant. The learned Advocate, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the material. It is not in dispute that the non- applicant/complainant was subjected to a detailed cross-examination. The tenor of the cross-examination of the complainant reveals that the applicant/accused had not given suggestion that the signature appearing on the cheque was not his signature. The dispute raised is only about handwriting of contents of the cheque. It will be useful to refer to the relevant portion of the cross-examination of the 4 complainant, which reads thus - ß gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] /kukns’k fu- 46 e/khy lgh lksMwu etdwj dks.kh fyfgyk gs eyk ekfgr ukgh------------ gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh /kukns’k fu- 46 ojhy lgh MkWV isuuh dsysyh vkgs- /kukns’k fu- 46 ofjy lgh o R;kofjy brj etdqj osxosxG;k ‘kkbZus fyfgysyk vkgs- g;kckcr eyk lkaxrk ;sr ukgh- Þ 7. Perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant shows that there is substance in the submission of the learned Advocate for the non-applicant that all the suggestions reflect that the applicant/ accused is not denying the signature. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional court has considered the material on record as well as the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. It is also not in dispute that the complaint is of the year 2008 and any further delay would certainly cause prejudice to the complainant/non-applicant. 8. In view of the above mentioned facts, I find considerable merits in the submissions of learned Advocate for the non-applicant that this is not a case where indulgence at the hands of this Court is required. The application is thus devoid of merits. 9. In the result, the criminal application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Diwale