Crl. Revision No.2242 of 2006. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2242 of 2006. Date of decision 15.09.2010. Manu Rai Jhanji ...... Petitioner. versus Keshav Rai Dhanda ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. K.C.PURI, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant- petitioner challenging the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by Shri S.S.Dhaliwal, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the complainant-petitioner for making identification of the handwriting of the accused Keshav Raj with forged signatures through expert evidence. The facts of the case in brief are that complaint under Sections 409, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed by the complainant on the allegations that he had entrusted 1000 Raymond Synthetic shares belonging to his sister Manju Khanji to the accused-respondent who was working as a broker in Ludhiana Stock Crl. Revision No.2242 of 2006. 2 Exchange Association during the years 1994-99. These shares were neither sold nor confirmed to the petitioner after being sold by the accused- respondent, but the respondent illegally transferred these 1000 shares to his own name by forging the signatures of Manju Jhanji on the transfer deed which carried bogus attestation of the Notary Public because after thorough inquiry and correspondence by the petitioner with the Registrar and Transfer Agent of Raymond Synthetic, he discovered that the accused- respondent broker had on the basis of one Transfer Deed bearing forged signatures of his sister Manju Jhanji in whose name these shares stood registered as shareholder, were got illegally transferred to his name The complainant moved an application for making the identification of the handwriting of the accused Keshav Rai with forged signatures through Expert evidence submitted that accused had got the shares of Manju Jhanaji transferred to his name on the basis of transfer deed duly attested by Notary, whereas the transfer deed bears the forged signatures of Manju Jhanji. Therefore, the expert evidence is required to establish the factum of forgery. On notice of the application, accused filed reply taking preliminary objection that the present application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. No such application is maintainable in view of the admission made by Vibhu Raj Jhanji, the real brother of the complainant himself, whose reference has been made in the application. Vibhu Raj Jhanji, while appearing before Investor Grievance Committee of Ludhiana stock exchange, in his statement has admitted that relevant signatures have been appended by him in relation to his mother and sister. Crl. Revision No.2242 of 2006. 3 On merits, all other allegations were denied and prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that the accused cannot be directed or compelled to give signatures. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the complainant- petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. Notice to the respondent was served but none has appeared. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is in contravention to Section 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is none to oppose the prayer. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by Shri S.S.Dhaliwal, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana stands set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass fresh order keeping in view Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, through counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.10.2010. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE September 15, 2010 sv