Rajeev Billa vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 19965 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152787
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18433 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Billa
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Raj Singhal,Rishika Raj Singhal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Singh,Vijai Prakash
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and Sri Vijai Prakash alongwith Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 26.4.2023 passed by the Session Judge, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Revision No. 8042 of 2023 (Rajeev Billa vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1305 of 2020, under Sections-420, 406, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad as well as impugned order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 3703 of 2021 (State vs. Rajeev Billa) arisng out under Sections-420, 406, 504 & 506 IPC.

3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that applicant has filed an application on 1.2.2023 under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. for seeking an expert opinion on the signatures of the applicant in the agreement to sale, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 28.2.2023 only on the ground that it can be seen at the stage of defence. He next submitted that there is provision of Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. about the verification of signatures or handwriting, therefore, orders are bad and liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Vijai Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 firmly submitted that it is also undisptued that applicant has remedy to raise this issue at the time of defence, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders, but could not dispute the fact that Section 311-A provides verification of signatures or handwriting.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the application dated 1.2.2023 as well as Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that in the application, there is no reference of any section, but prima facie contents of the same shows that application has been filed under Section 311-A Cr.P.C.

6. I have also perused the impugned orders. Impugned order is also having no reference of any section of Cr.P.C. in which orders have been passed. It is mistake on the part of counsel not to write any section of Cr.P.C. while moving application, but it is also required on the part of Court concerned to refer the section in which application was entertained and rejected. In the present case, either by the First Court or Revisional Court, there is no reference of section of Cr.P.C. in which it has been entertained and ultimately rejected.

7. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.2.2023 as well as revisional order dated 26.4.2023 is hereby quashed and application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to learned Court to decide the matter afresh within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in light of observation made hereinabove.

8. Learned Court is directed to decide the application without entertaining any fresh material on this issue at this stage except the legal provisions and judgments of the Courts.

Order Date :- 31.7.2023

Junaid