Uttarakhand High Court
Ishwar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 17 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:1814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
C528 No.45 of 2025
Ishwar Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy A.G. for the State
Date of Judgment: - 17.03.2025
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
By means of present petition u/s 528 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (in short, B.N.S.S.)
petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 19.01.2024
passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Vikasnagar, Dehradun in
Complaint Case No.20 of 2017 as well as the
judgment/order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Criminal
Revision No.10 of 2024.
2. By the impugned orders, the application filed
by the petitioner/accused, for calling a Handwriting
Expert to examine the cheque in question, has been
rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
would submit that as per the version of the respondent
2025:UHC:1814
no.2/complainant the cheque in question was issued by
the petitioner/accused to him on 05.10.2016 whereas the
cheque book was issued to the petitioner/accused in the
year 2011 and the cheque in question is the first cheque
of the said cheque book whereas the second cheque was
issued in the year 2012, which creates serious doubt
regarding the issuance of cheque in question.
4. Heard submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused and gone through the impugned
judgment/orders as well as the application filed by the
petitioner/accused.
5. The Trial Court has rejected the application of
the petitioner/accused on the ground that the
petitioner/accused did not depose anything in his
statement recorded either u/s 251, 313 of Cr.P.C or in
his cross-examination regarding the handwriting of the
description written on the cheque in question or that
some interpolation was done in the same, nor he has
mentioned in the application as to why he wants to call a
handwriting expert.
6. Learned Revisional Court also found favour
with the reasoning recorded by the trial court and it was
specifically observed by the Revisional Court that the
2025:UHC:1814
burden to prove the correction/interpolation in the
cheque in question, if any, was upon the
petitioner/accused but the petitioner/accused failed to
discharge this burden.
7. After going through the impugned orders,
which appear to be perfectly justified, this Court also
perused the application filed by the petitioner/accused.
In the application, the petitioner/accused has requested
to call a Handwriting Expert to examine the cheque in
question but the application is silent regarding the
purpose for calling the Expert. It is nowhere stated that
why the cheque in question is to be examined by the
Handwriting Expert.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
application was filed by the petitioner/accused in a very
cursory and haphazard manner without disclosing any
purpose or motive of filing the same, which is nothing
but blatant abuse of process of Court. The courts below
have rightly observed that the petitioner/accused did not
raise this issue of any correction/interpolation in the
cheque in question in his statement recorded either u/s
251, 313 of Cr.P.C or in his cross-examination. That
being the position, this Court has no hesitation to say
2025:UHC:1814
that the present petition is a frivolous petition thereby
making an attempt to delay the trial.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Pandurang
Vithal Kevne vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and
Another (2024) SCC Online 4108 has observed as
under:-
"22. Considering that precious time of this Court
and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in
our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened
with heavy cost, to give clear message to the
unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not
daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type
of litigants are not only polluting the stream of
justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to
others. The precious judicial time which the
petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for
taking up the cases of other litigants who are
waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants
are choking the system of the court, which is
resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is
also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb
such type of litigation so that more time is available
for dealing with genuine litigation.
23. In the light of facts and circumstances
as aforesaid, we are inclined to impose a cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) against the
petitioner to be deposited within the Maharashtra
State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
On failure, recovery be effected from the petitioner
as arrears of land revenue."
2025:UHC:1814
9. In K.C. Tharakan Vs State Bank of India &
Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022
decided on 01.05.2023], Hon'ble Supreme Court held the
following:
"No legal system can have a scenario where a
person keeps on raking up the issue again and
again once it is resolved at highest level. This is
complete wastage of judicial time. We, thus, dismiss
this petition with costs, though we limit the amount
of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed
person. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund to be
utilized for the SCBA library."
10. In Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India
(2014) 8 SCC 470, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted,
with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to
be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive
obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered
claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the
process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on
the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless
claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of
nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation
is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays
for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of
his borrowings), worrying that the other side may
trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends
2025:UHC:1814
invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them
for his claim. Time which he should have spent at
work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his.
Should a litigant not be compensated for, what he
has lost, for no fault? The suggestion to the
legislature is, that a litigant who has succeeded,
must be compensated by the one, who has lost. The
suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a
mechanism, that anyone who initiates and
continues a litigation senselessly, pays for the
same. It is suggested that the legislature should
consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory
Costs".
11. In view of the reasons recorded above, I am of
the considered view that petition should be dismissed
with exemplary cost. Accordingly, petition is dismissed in
limine with exemplary costs of ` 20,000/-, which shall be
paid by the petitioner/accused to the
complainant/respondent no.2 before the Trial Court on
the next date of hearing.
12. Petitioner/accused is directed to appear
before the Trial Court on 27.03.2025 at 10:30 AM.
13. Registry is directed to circulate copy of this
judgment in all the courts of the District Judiciary via e-
mail.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
17.03.2025
Rajni
2025:UHC:1814
