Petitioners Appiicants RfiSBondenis Compiainsnt Petitioners App!icants Resoondents Complainant Petjtioners Respondents Compiainant HiQH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH ATBJLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.332of2010 1. Anish Shah, S/o Prsmji Shah, Aged about 35 years, 2. Smt. Rupal Shah, W/o Shri Anish Shah, Both R/o C-304, Laxmi Comptex, Fafadih, Ralpur, District Raipur (C-G) Versus 1. Vijay Kumar Paii, S/o Lats B.R.Paii, R/'o Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur, Poiice Station - Purani Basti, Dist.Raipur (CG) 2. Staie of Chhatiisgarh, Through District Magistrate District Raipur (CG) Cr.M.P.No.333of2010 1. Anish Shah, S/o Premji Shah, Aged about35years, 2. Smt. Rupai Shah, W/o Shri Anish Shah, Bott R,'b C-304, Laxmi Comptex, Fafadih, Raipur, Distoict Raipur (CG) Versus •" 1. Vijay Kumsr Paii, 3/o Late B.R.Pali, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Rsipur, Poiice Station - Purani Basti, Dist.Raipur(CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Dsstrict Raipur (CG) And Cr.M.P.No.334of2010 1. Anish Shah, S/o Premji Shah, Aged about35yeare, 2. Smt. Rupai Shah, W/o Shri Anish Shah, Both R?o C-304, Laxmi Compisx, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) i/ersus 1. Vijay Kumar Paii, S/o Late B.R.Psii, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Math.para, Raipur, Poiice Station - Purani Basti, Dist.Raipur (CG) 2. Stats of Chhattlsgarh, Through District Magistrste Dtstrict Raipur (CG) "'•t?-. - 2- - (Petiiions under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, counsei forthe petNioners. Mr.Y.C.Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1 . Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for rsspondsnf No.2/Sfate. ORAL ORDER 7s 1. Cr.M.P.Nos.332/2010, 333/2010 and 334/2010 fiied against the order dated 7.4.2010 passed by th@ Sessions judgs, Raipur in Criminai Revjslon Nos.26/2010, 28/2010 and 27/2010 ars being disposed of by ihis common order. 2. Brisf facts necessar/ for disposal of these petitions are that respondent No.1 has fiied compiaint under Section 138 offhe Negotsabie instrumsnte Act, 1881 (for short the Act') against the petittoners. Sams is psnding befois ths Judiciai Magistrats Firet Class, Raipur. After sntering in defence in such case, the present petrtionsrs have fiied an applicatson for examination'ofthe ailsged cheque by handwriting expsrt. After hearing the parties, iearnsd Judteia! Magistrate First Class, Raipur has dismissed the appiication vide order dated 21.1.2010. Same was chalienged before the Sessjons Judge, Raipur in Crimina! Revision Nos.26/2010, 28/2010 and 27/2010. Learned Sessions Judge, Raipur whiie affirming the order passed by the JMFC, Raipur has dismissed the revision vide order dated 7.4.2010. 3. ! have heard leaned counse! for the parties, perused the petition, order impugned and other documents filed on behaif ofthe petitioners. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners vehementty argued that in cas® instihited otherwise on poiice report, the presert petitioners have right to adduce their evidence and examine the expert evidence in terms of Section 247 read wrth Section 243 of the Cr.P.C., they have exeroised their right for examlning the expert, but same has besn iliegaliy denied by ihe triai Court and whiie dismissing the revision, the rsvisional Court has aiso not considered the right ofthe petitioners and thereby committed iiiegatity. 5. On the other hand, iearned counsel for the respondents opposed the petitions. and argusd that after closing of defsnce and on ths date of finai '^•^^:'^. ^ ^l -? hsaring of ths case, the petrtioners hsve fiied the aforasaid appiication for examination of the documents and examination of sxpert. it shows that only with a view to deiay sn triai the petitioners have filed the aforssaid appiscation. in appiscation for such examination of (iocuments by expert even the petitioners have not mentioned the fact that who has signed the - cheque and whether they havs issued the cheque or not. Oniy batd altegation has been made in the application. Ampis opportunity has been glven to the petitioners, therefore, considering vexatious appiteation, the triai Court has rightly rejected the application filed on behaif of the petifioners which has been affirmed by the revisionai Court and thereby both the Courts beiow have not committed any iilegaiity warranting any infsrence. 6. Powsr under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. is sxceptionat in nature and should be usecs sparinaiy. Whiis dealing wth exercise of power under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. in the matter of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceuticai Works Ud. and others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and others the Supreme Court has heid thus, "8. Exeroise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of ..thi&'nsture is the exception and not the ruls. The Section does not-sonfer any new powers on the High Court. it only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed befors the enactment of the Code. it envisages fhree cireumstances under which the •' inherent jurisdiction may be exereised, nameiy, (i) to givs effect to an order under the Code, (iQ to prevent abuse of She prossss of court, and (iii) to othenviss secure the ends ofjustic®. it is neiihar possible nor desirabie to lay down any inflexible ru!e which wouid govem ths exercise of infterent jurisdiction........." 7. As per order smpugned passed by the trisi Court, four opportunities have been given to ths petitioners for adducmg evidence, sven they have examined ons tiefence v.itness Rajesh Shah i.e. or.s person and after ciosing of defsnce evidence when the case was fixed for finai arguments, then oniy the petitioners have filed the application for examination of the documents and expert, in whlch evsn they have not aiieged that who has signed the cheque, whsther ihey have signed the cheque or not, whether they want to deny that they have not signed the chequs or they have not made entries in the cheque other than the signature, even ttsey have not AIR.2005SC9 '•^.: atleged that whether respondent No.1 has madeailegation in his comptaint that one person has executed and fiiied the cheque. 8. in these circumstances, by dismissing bald appiteation aftsr providing complete opportunity neither the trial Court nor the rsvisionai Court has commHted sny itlegaiity. i do not find any scope for interference in exereise of inhsrent jurisdiction under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. 9, Consequently, ths petitions are liabie to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge RA