CRM-M No.30435 OF 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 05, 2011 Mohit Gupta ...Petitioner Versus G.S.Narula ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra declining his prayer to send the cheques dated 31.10.2009 and 15.5.2010 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) to FSL, Madhuban, Haryana for the purpose of comparing the handwriting of Shri Shankar Dass CW-2 in the body of cheques, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of this order. The petitioner would also pray for direction to seek permission for granting the prayer made in the application for sending these cheques for comparison by the CRM-M No.30435 OF 2011 (O&M) : 2 : handwriting expert. The prayer made by the petitioner in the application was considered by the trial Magistrate. It has been observed by the trial Court that Shankar Dass (CW-2) has appeared in the witness box and has stated that he had filled body of the cheques in question, on which the fraudulent transaction is being alleged, cannot normally be done with the payee's cross cheque. Otherwise, the witness had not disputed that he had endorsed his signatures on the cheques. The Court accordingly found that in view of this evidence, no purpose would be served in getting the comparison of the handwriting on the disputed cheques done. It has otherwise been stated that it is for the defence to lead any evidence in this regard and accordingly the Court did not feel necessity of granting the prayer for sending these cheques for comparison. It has also been observed that by merely comparing the handwriting, it cannot lead to any conclusion as the question, which, the Court was considering was whether the cheques were given by the accused duly signed by him in the complaint or not. It is further observed that if for the sake of arguments even if the handwriting is compared of said witness Shankar Dass, then result could be either the same is in handwriting of Shankar Dass or it is not in the handwriting of Shankar Dass. CRM-M No.30435 OF 2011 (O&M) : 3 : As per the Court, it does not effect the decision of the case in any way. Obviously, once the signatures on the cheques are admitted, the necessary consequences and the inferences can be drawn by the court. Merely because that cheque was filled by somebody else or by the person, who had signed, it could not lead to indicate any fraud. The petitioner, in my view, is unnecessarily apprehensive of his right being curtailed to put up a fair defence. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S.Sampoornam, 2007(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 311 and T.Nagappa Versus Y.R.Muralidhar, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 926, where it is observed that the accused is entitled to fair opportunity to defend himself. No opportunity apparently has been denied to the petitioner. The view taken by the trial Court perhaps is not being appreciated properly by the petitioner. The petitioner, I think, is missing something while making the prayer in the present petition. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Dismissed. October 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE