Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) - This criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for examination of the report of disputed document from Central Forensic Science Laboratory in FIR No. 102 of 2011 registered at Police Station Nayapura Kota, FSL Report No. FSL QD171/11 dated 15.6.2011.
(2.) Brief facts of this case are that against the accused petitioner a complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was sent by the concerned Magistrate for registration of FIR to the concerned police station. After that the police station registered FIR No. 102 of 2011 on 7.2.2011. A civil suit is pending before the concerned civil court and temporary stay has been granted on 9.12.2010. After that this FIR was registered against the petitioner. During investigation the police sent the disputed Ikrarnama document after getting the same from civil court to the FSL for examination. The FSL has examined the document and sent opinion to the concerned investigating agency and the same document was also examined by former Additional Director Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur. Both these reports are contradictory and different and it has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner drawing attention of this court to section 293 Cr.P.C. and section 45 of the Evidence Act prays that the said document may be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. This court called the investigating officer and the investigating officer, who was present in person has contended that the investigation is complete and he will soon file the challan and he has examined the report of the FSL. Mr. Sandhu has put certain objections upon the report which has been obtained by the investigating officer from the State Forensic Laboratory on 15.6.2011. Mr. Sandu in support of his submission placed reliance on Samadhan Dhudaka Koli v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 1059 , Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254 : 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 46 Mr. Sandu also relied upon the order dated 8.12.2010 of the Sessions Judge Kota on the application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. of Ramavtar in which it was stated thus - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 3. The complainant filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for impleading him as respondent No. 2 in the above case on 6.2.2012 and has also filed reply to the misc. petition filed by the accused petitioner and brief submissions. It has been stated in the reply that the civil suit preferred by the petitioner was found to be time barred but thereafter by amending the plaint, the accused petitioner got the civil suit registered before the civil court at Kota. Soon after service of the notices, the complainant enquired about the facts where upon he came to know that the accused had been doing forgery in the alleged agreement. The agreement to sale dated 20.9.2004 does not even fall within the definition of agreement in as much as it does not contain the signature of the purchaser i.e. Narendra Khandelwal and as such this document is not sufficient to hold that any agreement was ever arrived at between the accused petitioner and the complainant's father. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 7.3.2011 issued in S.B., Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2553 of 2010 Ramavtar and another v. State of Rajasthan and another further modified vide order dated 22.4.2011 the investigating officer sent the disputed document to FSL for examining the authenticity of the signatures and only thereafter the Investigating officer was directed to proceed further. The agreement dated 20.9.2004 was taken by the Investigating officer from the civil court and the same was sent to FSL Jaipur for comparison. As per the FSL report the signatures of the complainant and Mohan Lal were found to be dis-similar to the standard signatures of both of them. These signatures were forged by the accused petitioner or any person on his behalf and the accused petitioner was a beneficiary in the alleged agreement. The report of the FSL may not be doubted merely on account of different opinion given by a private person. 4. Mr. S.R. Surana, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anurag Sahrma, appearing for the complainant has contended that at the investigation stage the accused has no right to be heard. He has placed reliance on Narendra G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009 ) 3 Criminal Court cases 719 (SC) . He has drawn attention towards para 10 of the judgment. Para 10 of the judgment in Narendra G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) reads as under : "10. It is well settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. The prosecution will however have to prove its case at the trial when the accused will have full opportunity to rebut/question the validity and authenticity of the prosecution case. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 this Court observed, "There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard." The accused can certainly avail himself of an opportunity to cross examine and/or otherwise controvert the authenticity, admissibility or legal significance of material evidence gathered in course of further investigations. Further in light of the views expressed by the investigating officer in his affidavit before the High Court, it is apparent that the investigating authorities would inevitably have conducted further investigation with the aid of CFS under Section 173(8) of the Code." 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions raised by both the parties and has also gone through the judgments cited by the parties. On the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court, I am of the view that this criminal misc. petition should be disposed of with the following directions : (1) As the investigation is complete and the investigating officer may soon file the challan before the trial court. If the challan is filed the petitioner may move an application before the trial court regarding the document which is to be examined from the Central Forensic Laboratory as requested by the petitioner in his petition before this court and the same shall be decided by the trial court and it is the discretion of the trial court to examine the said document from the Central Forensic Laboratory or not to examine the same in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. Petition Disposed of as per above Directions.;