1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1133/08 Sushil Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of order : 8/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta for the petitioner. ****** The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 13.12.2007 and 18.1.2008. The first order dated 3.12.2007 was passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum Judicial Magistrate no.13 in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By that order, the application of the petitioner filed under Section 311 to summon three persons as witnesses for the purpose of their examination and sending cheques for examination by handwriting expert was 2 rejected. The second order dated 18.1.2008 has been passed by the Court of Special Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the aforesaid order has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the cheques on the basis of which proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against the petitioner were forged, the request of such cheques to be examined by hand-writing expert and submitting the defense witnesses ought to have been granted. Order initiating the proceedings being nullity in law would be liable to be challenged even in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry & 3 Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors., 2007 (4) SCC 221 and argued that such order can be challenged at any stage, whether in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material forming part of the record, I find that the petitioner has already availed of the remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing the revision petition before the Court of Special Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The petitioner has the remedy even before this Court by way of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the face of such a remedy, the argument of the petitioner that writ petition should be entertained in preference to petition aforesaid cannot be appreciated. The judgment of Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the 4 petitioner is distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot be applied to the present case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as being not maintainable though with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/