Crl. Misc. No. M- 40889 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 40889 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 12, 2010 Dewan Singh ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar and order dated 8.7.2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagadhari. Heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Petitioner-complainant had filed a complaint against respondents No.2 and 3 on the allegations that they had forged the cheques in question and had withdrawn Rs.4,20,000/- from the account of the petitioner. The petitioner-complainant in support of his complaint led his preliminary Crl. Misc. No. M- 40889 of 2007 2 evidence. Vide order dated 8.7.2004 the trial Court while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner in para 5 of the impugned order has held as under :- “5. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the evidence placed on the file, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to prove that both the accused had committed any offence punishable under Section 467/468/471/420 read with Section 120-B IPC. The complainant has no where mentioned in his complaint that when the cheques Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 were stolen. The complainant had not made any complaint to the police regarding missing of his cheques. The complainant had also not intimated the bank for not honouring the cheques, which were stolen or missing. It was the duty of the complainant that when he came to know about the missing of the cheques to intimate the bank. The complainant is himself not sure that when his cheques were stolen. The cheque No.057648 was encashed in January 1999. If the cheques Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 were missing at the time of issuing cheque No.057648, the complainant had to intimate the bank as the cheque No.057648 was encashed. The cheque book was in the custody of the complainant and he can not claim the respondents accused for honouring the cheques as the cheques in question bear the signatures of the complainant. Admittedly, the report of the Hand-Writing Expert shows that the disputed signatures do not belong to the complainant but it the signatures of the Crl. Misc. No. M- 40889 of 2007 3 complainant from the opening account from Ex.C-5 is compared with nabbed eyes with the signatures of the complainant on the disputes cheques Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4, it is very difficult to find out that these disputed signatures does not belong to the complainant. The accused No.1 Surender Singh Ahluwalia is the Manager of Bank of Punjab Ltd. Yamuna Nagar and Vikramjit Singh is the Cashier of Bank of Punjab Ltd. There is no direct evidence on the file, which can shows that both the accused had forged the signatures of the complainant and got encashed the cheques. On mere apprehension of the complainant, both the accused cannot be summoned by this Court.” Aggrieved by the said order petitioner preferred revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition in para 8 of the impugned order has held as under :- “It is worth pointing out at the very out set that the complainant in his complaint has not clarified as to when he had gone to Muradabad and when the four cheques in question were stolen form his cheque book. Even as CW3 he has remained silent regarding this fact. Admittedly he had withdrawn the amount vide cheque no. 057648 in January 1999. The complainant could very well came in know about four cheques missing from his cheque book, when he issued cheque no.057648, therefore, it was his duty to inform the bank immediately that his four cheques were missing from the cheque book and same were not to be encashed. However, Crl. Misc. No. M- 40889 of 2007 4 instead of informing the bank about the missing cheques form the cheque book he issued cheque no.057648 and got the same encashed Bank officials/officers cannot be considered as Finger Print and Hand Writing Expert and it cannot be expected from them that there can be no mistake regarding comparing the signatures on cheque with the specimen signatures of the customer. The signatures of customer on the cheque or withdrawal voucher are compared with the specimen signatures kept in record of the bank generally with naked eyes and no photographic enlargement is made out compare the same in scientific manner. Even the report of Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert shows that the forgery was with free hand. Photographic enlargements prepared by Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert when seen with naked eyes show that there is not much difference in the disputed signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures. The facts and circumstances indicate that the complaint himself was negligent in maintaining the cheque book. Had he been vigilant he could inform the bank as well as the police regarding the missing cheques from the cheque book immediately so that no body could get the same encashed. Instead of being careful user of the cheque book, he tried to put became on the officers of the bank, regarding the encashment of cheques from his account, on the basis of alleged forged signatures.” The reasons given by the trial Court while dismissing the Crl. Misc. No. M- 40889 of 2007 5 complaint as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition are sound reasons. The petitioner had not made any complaint qua the fact that the four cheques in question had been stolen. Rather the petitioner had withdrawn the amount vide cheque No.05768 in the year 1999 and thus it could be inferred that he had the knowledge that the four cheques earlier in number were missing. However, the petitioner did not file any complaint in this regard that these four cheques in question had been stolen nor he approached the Bank to stop the payment qua the said cheques. In the absence of any evidence that the cheques in question had been forged by the petitioner, the courts' below had rightly dismissed the complaint. The opinion of the hand writing expert failed to advance the case of the petitioner. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 12, 2010 JUDGE Anand