1 95 wp.3599.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3599 OF 2010 Vinayak Jayram Aire. ... Petitioner Versus Upendra Bhikai Ghode and another. ... Respondents ----- Ms Sangita S. Bhole for the Petitioner. Mr. P.D.Dalvi for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.R.Patil, APP for Respondent No.2 / State. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10 th October, 2011. P.C. 1 In view of the earlier order, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2 The Respondent No.1 is the complainant in a private complaint filed alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881 against the Petitioner. At the stage, when the evidence of the Respondent No.1 – complainant was being recorded, the Petitioner made an application at Exhibit – 20 contending that the cheque in dispute does not bear his signature and 2 95 wp.3599.10 that the particulars entered on the cheque were not in his handwriting. It is also contended that the signature on the document of settlement- deed, was not of the Petitioner. Therefore, a prayer was made in the said application for sending both the documents to the handwriting expert. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and illegal. 4 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submitted that the application was made only to prolong the hearing of the complaint and therefore, no interference is called for. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. Admittedly, evidence of the Respondent No.1 – complainant is being recorded. The Respondent No.1 has not yet closed his evidence. The application made by the Petitioner was premature. Such application could have been considered on merits after recording the statement of the Petitioner under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 3 95 wp.3599.10 1973. Therefore, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside with a direction to the trial Court to consider the application at appropriate stage. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 10 th November, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit – 20 is restored. The said application shall be kept pending and the trial Court shall proceed with the recording of evidence of the prosecution. The said application shall be considered on merits at an appropriate stage after recording the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; ii. All the objections of the Respondent No.1 to the said application are kept open ; iii. Hearing of the complaint is expedited ; and iv. The petition is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]