CRM No.M-34422 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-34422 of 2010 Date of Decision:23.11.2010 Sh.Rajender Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the essential facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record are that, respondent-complainant-Ramesh Kumar filed a complaint(Annexure P-1) against the petitioner-accused-Rajender Singh, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial was concluded and when the arguments had already been heard on behalf of the complainant, then the petitioner-accused moved an application(Annexure P-2) for permission to produce hand-writing expert to prove the date, month and signatures on the cheque. The application was dismissed by the trial Court by virtue of impugned order dated 03.11.2010(Annexure P-3). 3. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied and filed the present petition for setting aside the impugned order(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in this petition in this context. CRM No.M-34422 of 2010 2 5. As is evident from the record that the complainant filed the complaint(Annexure P-1) and the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the validity of the cheque in question. Seven effective opportunities were granted to the accused to adduce the evidence in defence, but he did not produce any hand-writing witness. The very belated attempt to produce the hand-writing expert is nothing but to delay the disposal of the case. The prayer of the petitioner- accused for production of hand-writing expert was declined vide impugned order (Annexure P-3). The operative part of which is, as under:- “After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case filed carefully, I am of the considered opinion that with the present application accused wanted to show that the alleged cheque had never been executed by him, so much, so, that the complainant in order to enhance the validity period of cheque, had made the alleged tampering. At the foremost, it is pertinent to observe for the purpose of deciding this application that the court is unable to comprehend as to why the complainant would tamper the cheque in question specially when the liability of Rs.2,25,000/- has been admitted by the accused with his notice which was sent to the complainant by him. The court is unable to understand as to the reason that why the complainant would put himself in the adverse position as well as would enhance the validity period thereby extending the encashment of Rs.2,25,000/- from the accused. Further more, with the present application the accused wanted to show that the alleged cheque had never been executed by him but for that matter it is a settled principle of law that the burden to prove the execution of the cheque is on the complainant and in case the complainant has not been able to do so, the same may go against him. Moreover, perusal of the case file reveals that the accused was always aware of the defence taken by him since the inception of the complaint so much so that on 06.05.2010 after the statement of the accused was recorded 7 effective opportunities have been granted to the accused to adduce the evidence to that effect but no such evidence had been adduced by the accused on this point. Now when the part arguments had already been heard by the court of the complainant as well as the accused while the case was fixed for CRM No.M-34422 of 2010 3 some arguments and order, the present application moved by the accused which seems to be nothing but the gross misuse of the process of law as well as one of the delay tactics which cannot be allowed. Thus, the present application deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.” 6. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner in this relevant connection. Such well- articulated order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order. Therefore, the same is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 23, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-34422 of 2010 4