Cr.MMO No. 114 of 2007. 4.1.2008. Present: Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record of the trial Court very carefully, I find that the learned trial Magistrate by passing the impugned order has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application in which a prayer was made for summoning the old record for comparison of the signatures of the respondent. I have also perused communication No. Bx- 28/2007-208 dated 8/12th June, 2007 from Shri N.C. Sood, Government Examiner, Directorate of Forensic Science, Shimla. At pages 157, 158, 165 to 172 are the specimen signatures of the respondent. In my opinion, the Government Examiner ought to have given his opinion about the genuineness of the writing occurring at Q-1 in the light of and after comparison of the aforesaid specimen signatures. In para (3) of the aforesaid communication, the Government Examiner has desired that for comparison of the material to the following effect, “ R/o, Thakur Niwas Near Auckland Hotel, Shimla-171001” occurring in Q-1, the specimen writing of the respondent to the aforesaid effect containing similar letters and their combinations etc. be 2 procured and sent to the laboratory. In my opinion, this requirement of the Government Examiner does deserve to be complied with because it will be helpful for deciding about the genuineness of the signatures as well as the writing attributed to the respondent as occurring in Q-1. While dismissing this petition, I direct that, after complying with the aforesaid requirement of the Government Examiner with respect to obtaining the similar writing as occurring in Q-1, the Government Examiner be directed by the learned trial Magistrate to send his opinion in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has made a statement before me that his client shall submit in the trial Court the aforesaid sample of the writing occurring in Q-1 in the presence of the Magistrate on the next date to be fixed by me for this purpose. The record be sent back to the learned trial Court where the parties are directed to appear on 17th January, 2008. If the respondent does not appear, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the petitioner does not appear, the learned trial Magistrate shall issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner for compelling his attendance in the Court. The petition is dismissed. 3 Cr.MP No.601 of 2007. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application shall stand dismissed. 4th January, 2008. (V.K. Gupta), C.J. (tr)