ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeks to quash the order dated 03.09.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2016, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand and another, and order dated 17.02.2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal case No. 4105 of 2015, M/s Mariya Industries v. Anil Kumar Yadav and further be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court/1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.),/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur to call a report from the handwriting expert of the Government Forensic Lab Dehradun asking it whether the writing over the cheque no. 180405 and deposit form dated 27.10.2014 are same or not and only thereafter pass the final order in Criminal case no. 4105 of 2015, M/s Mariya Industries v. Anil Kumar Yadav.

(2.) The complainant-respondent filed a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant's evidence was closed. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. The criminal complaint case was fixed for defence evidence. At this stage, an application for comparing the description/particulars made in the cheque with the admitted handwriting of the accused was filed. The signatures of the accused on the cheque were admitted. Said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved with the same, the accused filed a criminal revision which too was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed.

(3.) The accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque which was delivered to respondent No. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the handwriting in the cheque does not belong to him. Learned Trial Court, by a reasoned order, dismissed the prayer for comparing the handwriting on the cheque with the admitted handwriting of the accused by a reasoned and elaborate order. When the criminal revision was preferred by the accused, learned Revisional Court, again by an elaborate and reasoned order, dismissed the criminal revision. This Court need not delineated those reasons which have been given by two courts below for the sake of brevity. The applicant wanted the handwriting on the cheque to be compared with the handwriting on the bank slip.