HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU 561-A Cr.P.C No. 75/2009 Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 _______________________________________________ Mangat Ram Kohli v. Arun Arya Coram: Mr. Justice J. P. Singh. Appearing Counsel: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Pawan Kundal, Advocate. For Respondent (s) : Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate. i) Whether approved for reporting in Press/Journal/Media : Yes/No ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No ___________________________________________________________ Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (Sub-Judge) Special Railway Magistrate, Jammu’s order dated 12.05.2009 allowing respondent-accused’s Application seeking Handwriting Expert’s opinion on the Cheque, stated by the petitioner-complainant to have been issued to him by the respondent, to support his defence that he had not signed and issued the Cheque to the complainant, has been questioned by the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Complainant’s learned counsel submits that sending of the Cheque in question to the Expert for his opinion regarding respondent’s signature thereon would be a time consuming process which was likely to delay the already delayed trial of 2 the petitioner’s Complaint, which was instituted in the year 2006 and the order questioned in the Petition, therefore, needs to be quashed to ensure speedy trial of the petitioner’s Complaint. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989 may be exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of Justice. The accused-respondent was in the process of leading his defence when he sought learned Magistrate’s permission to send the Cheque in question to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion to substantiate his specific defence taken in the case that he had not issued any Cheque to the complainant. The accused has the absolute discretion to choose the nature of evidence he may like so to produce, by way of his defence, to the Charge, which he is called upon to face. The option exercised by him to seek Expert opinion on a question which would be relevant to deal with the issue that the Court will have to dwell on, during the trial, as to whether or not the Cheque in question was issued by the respondent, to support his defence, cannot be said to be an attempt intended to cause failure of justice and delay in trial. 3 Keeping the well established principles of Criminal Jurisprudence in view, which warrant fair trial to an accused, the respondent-accused’s right to lead evidence to support his defence, cannot be curtailed for early disposal of the petitioner’s Complaint because in the garb of speedy disposal of cases, the rights of the parties cannot be compromised, in that, such a course was likely to result in failure of justice. The discretion exercised by the learned Judicial Magistrate to allow the respondent’s prayer to get the Cheque in question examined by the Expert for his opinion as to whether or not the signatures thereon were that of the respondent, cannot, therefore, be said to result in failure of justice warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No case for interference in the order passed by the learned Magistrate First Class (Sub Judge) Special Railway Magistrate, Jammu has, therefore, been made out. This Petition, therefore, lacks substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. (J. P. Singh) Judge JAMMU: 27.09.2011 Pawan Chopra