Uttarakhand High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2066 of 2022
Vinod Kumar ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Presents:-
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is
made to the followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated
22.07.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.384 of
2019, Mohd. Ikram Vs. Vinod Kumar, by the
court of First Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
District Haridwar ("the case"). By it, an
application filed by the petitioner for obtaining
opinion of handwriting expert on the cheque in
dispute has been rejected. And;
(ii) judgement and order dated
13.09.2022, passed in Criminal Revision No.320
of 2022, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
by the court of First Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar ("the revision"). By it,
the impugned judgment and order, passed in the
case, has been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the respondent
no.2 ("the complainant") filed a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act")
against the petitioner, which is basis of the case. In the
case, on 11.07.2022, the petitioner filed an application,
with the averments therein, that he had given the
cheque for Rs. 50,000/-, but by forgery, the complainant
made it Rs. 5,00,000/- by adding one zero in it.
Therefore, it was requested that the opinion of
handwriting expert may be obtained. By the impugned
order dated 22.07.2022, passed in the case, this
application was rejected. The order has further been
confirmed in the revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, in fact, the petitioner had given a cheque
for Rs. 50,000/-. He had already filled the figures in the
cheque and had not filled up the cheque in words. It is
submitted that the complainant added one zero so as to
reflect as if the cheque is for Rs. 5,00,000/-. Therefore, it
is argued that it could have been ascertained by
obtaining a handwriting expert, for which an application
was moved, but it has been wrongly rejected.
5. The record reveals that earlier also, an
application seeking opinion of handwriting expert was
moved by the petitioner on 09.06.2022. In that
application, it has been the case of the petitioner that, in
fact, he did not fill up the cheque. The cheque is not in
the handwriting of the petitioner. Therefore, opinion of
handwriting expert be obtained. The application dated
09.06.2022 had already been dismissed by the court on
by an order dated 22.07.2022, passed in the case.
6. It appears that once this application dated
09.06.2022 was dismissed, the petitioner moved another
application. The court below has considered the
averments taken by the petitioner. At one stage, it was
his case that he did not fill up the cheque, which means
it was blank. When it was rejected, he took a plea that,
in fact, he filled up the figures part of the cheque alone
and that is for Rs. 50,000/-, which was made Rs.
5,00,000/- by forgery or manipulation. The court below
observed that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is also
written in words in the cheque. Therefore, there is no
necessity to get the opinion of handwriting expert.
7. It has been the case of the petitioner in his
application dated 09.06.2022 that he did not fill up the
cheque. Therefore, opinion of handwriting expert may be
obtained. But when this application was rejected, he
came with another case that he filled up the figures of
Rs. 50,000/- in the cheque and rest of the cheque was
not filled up by him.
8. Keeping in view these factors, the court
below, in the opinion of this Court, has rightly rejected
the application of the petitioner. There appears to be no
error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned
judgments and orders. Therefore, there is no merit in
this petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.11.2022
Ravi Bisht
