HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.: 19 of 2008. Decided on: 20.6.2008 Tej Nath Sharma ………Petitioner. Versus Om Parkash Mukheja ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned trial Court vide which an application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for comparison of handwriting was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 11.3.2008. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who filed reply. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is clear from a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner that he has prayed that the order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - trial Court be directed to summon the personal file of the respondent for handing over the same to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that the admitted signatures of the respondent on Power of Attorney and complaint were sent to Government Examiner for comparison and the petitioner has now prayed that the personal file of the complainant from his office be summoned containing his signatures and this be sent for comparison. A perusal of the record also shows that earlier also an application was filed and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the said application filed for the comparison of documents. The said order passed by this Court is, dated 4.1.2008, copy of which is placed on the record. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, fresh documents were required to be procured and sent to the laboratory and those were procured and sent to the laboratory in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, no case is made out for reconsidering the plea raised by the petitioner again for obtaining the record from the office of the respondent and to send it for comparison. The documents were required to be sent out of the admitted signatures of the respondent which compliance was made by the learned trial Court and a detailed order was passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application filed in this regard under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically provided under Section 397 Cr.P.C. that the powers of revision conferred by Sub Section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any trial. This clearly - 3 - shows that the Legislator has specifically provided that no revision shall lie against an interlocutory order. The order passed by the learned trial Court was an interlocutory order and since no revision was maintainable, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised by the Court in exceptional circumstances only and in case some illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court, which cannot be corrected except by exercising these powers vested in this Court. I have considered the order passed by this Court earlier as well as the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and it is clear that the case is not being concluded only for the reason that one or the other application is being filed by the petitioner for comparison. The order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from an illegality and is not liable to be quashed. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition filed by the petitioner which is dismissed accordingly. The case shall be tried by the learned trial Court on day to day basis being an old case and steps shall be taken to dispose of the same at an early date. However, it is made clear that observations made in the present order shall not be considered by the learned trial Court as any opinion expressed on the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, shall also stand vacated. (V.K. Ahuja), June 20, 2008 Judge. (TILAK)