@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. 207 OF 2011 Smt. Kamni Sahayata, wife of Satish Sahayata, aged about 43 years, Occupah‘on House Wife, resident of Mahavir Nagar, New Purena, Thana Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Abdul Aziz, son of Late Shri Abdul Gani, resident of Homeopathic Medical Shop, Maliliya Road, Thana Kotwali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Distu‘c‘t Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Mr. S. Imtiaz Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Qamanll Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER [Passed on 19/04/201 1) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cn'mjnal Procedure, 1973, (in short ‘the Code’) petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 24/3/2011 passed by 7m Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in criminal revision No. 53/2011 affirming the order dated 21/ 1/2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in criminal complaint case No. 1773/2006 whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur has allowed the application for examination of signature of respondent No. 1 upon the cheque in dispute, alleged issued by respondent No. 1. . Mr. S. Imtiaz Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Qamarul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2 are heard. As per copy of order impugned, copy of statement of petitioner, copy of examination of respondent No. 1 and copy of application for examination of cheque on behalf of the raspondent No. 1, it mveals that by ming application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, respondent No. 1 has alleged that cheque in question has not been signed by him interalia somebody has forged the signature as an executant of cheque but answer to question No. 4 under Section 313 of the Code given by respondent No. 1 reveals that he has issued the cheque for security which reveals that he has admitted issuance of genuine executed cheque. Both the Courts below have permitted respondent No. 1 for examination of cheque by expert and has permitted for the expert evidence to respondent No. 1. Without fuither comments on such daring step taken by non— applicant No. 1 of adducing evidence for proving the fact that he has issued forged cheque to the petitioner, I do not iind any ground for interference in exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction although respondent No. 1 is still at liberty to withdraw his claim for examination of documents by expert and for adducing expert evidence and if such claim or application is filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 then considering the fact that respondent No. .1 is accused, Court shall considered his claim or application for withdrawal of such application at subsequent stage, with the aforesaid direction petition is stands disposed of. LA. No. 1 is dismissed summarily Sdl- i T.P. Sharma Judge Certined copy as per rules.