1 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1080/2006 (Dilip Keshwani Vs. Rajesh Kothari & Anr.) Date of order : : 15.05.2007 HON'BLE MR. KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA, J. Mr.Sanjay Nahar, for the petitioner. Mr.Manoj Bohra, for the respondent. Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, PP for the State. By this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara whereby he has upheld the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (West), Bhilwara. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 28.10.2005 rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that disputed cheque clearly shows that one zero was added by the respondent No.1 by fabrication, therefore, petitioner moved an application before the learned trial court for sending the disputed 2 cheque No.353707 dated 1.6.2004 of Rs.1,50,000/- to the hand- writing expert for verifying the writing in the cheque. The complainant submitted reply to the said application. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. It is contended that coma has been shown after 15 which clearly shows that last zero was written in the cheque afterwards for making the amount of Rs.15,000/- as Rs.15,0000/-. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not considered this aspect properly. Learned revisional court also not considered this matter in true perspective and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the disputed cheque as well as statements of the witnesses and stated that opinion of the hand-writing expert should be taken regarding the fabrication made in the alleged cheque. He has cited before me the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mallou @ Maniram and Anr. Vs. Kashiram & Anr reported in 2006(2) RCRD 238 (Raj.). In reply, learned counsel for the respondent states 3 that from perusal of the cheque in question, it is clear that no zero was added in the cheque as in words also 'Rupees One Lac fifty thousand' has been written. It is next contended that four complaints under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the respondent No.1 against the accused-petitioner for dishonor of four cheques. Three cheques were of Rs.15,000/- each and one cheque was of Rs.1,50,000/-. In three complaints, compromise has been taken place and respondent No.1 also filed application dated 30.8.2005 before the trial court stating therein that since compromise has arrived in between the parties, therefore, criminal case may be quashed. According to counsel for the respondent, accused himself stated in the compromise that amount of fourth cheque which was of Rs.1,50,000/- is due and whenever he will have the money he will pay the same. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has produced before me the certified copy of the application dated 30.8.2005 which is kept on record. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order passed by learned Magistrate as well as of learned revisional 4 court. The compromise took place in three cases and an application was also filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (West) Bhilwara for dismissal of the criminal case pending against the accused-petitioner on 30.8.2005 wherein it has been stated that Rs. 1,50,000/- is due against the petitioner. What will be the effect of the compromise arrived at between the parties can be considered by the trial court at the final stage. In my considered view, learned both the courts below have not committed any illegal or irregularly in passing the impugned order. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. The petitioner is free to produce his evidence before the trial court regarding this disputed fact. With the aforesaid observation, this misc. petition is disposed of. (KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA), J. NK