Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
S.K. Forjing through propriter Mohd. Muslim Khilchi Son of Shri Mohammad Amin - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P. and others - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 866 of 2016
Decided On : 10-03-2017
Handwriting Analysis - Criminal Misc. Petition - The court rejected the application for sending documents to the FSL for handwriting analysis, citing the specific bar of entertaining second revision by the same person and the lack of relevance of the documents to the complaint in question.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner appealed against the rejection of the application for sending documents to the FSL for handwriting analysis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of revision and that the documents in dispute were dated differently from the cheque in question, leading to the dismissal of the Misc. Petition.
Issues: Relevance of documents for handwriting analysis, bar on entertaining second revision by the same person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the specific bar on entertaining second revision and the lack of relevance of the documents to the complaint in question.
Final Decision: The Misc. Petition was dismissed, and the stay application was also disposed of.
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Application for early hearing is allowed.
2. At the request of the parties, the matter is heard today.
3. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 26.10.2015 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instrument Act cases) No.16, Jaipur and order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan. Whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for sending the documents to the FSL to ascertain whether same is in handwriting of complainant.
4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid the amount to the complainant and receipt was given to him by the complainant which bears the hand writing of the complainant. The Court below has committed grave error in not sending documents to the hand writing expert.
5. Counsel for the complainant has opposed this Misc. Petition. His contentions is that the alleged document is dated 20.09.2013 whereas the complainant pertains to cheque dated 29.11.2013, therefore, the document has no relevance to the complaint in question.
6. It is also contended that complainant has availed of the remedy of revision and second revision is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
7. I have considered the contentions and perused the order passed by the Court below. The trial Court in its order has specifically mentioned that the Court is competent to compare signature and hand writing and the petitioner has cross-examined the complainant at length with regard to the receipt.
8. There being a specific bar of entertaining second revision by the same person and petitioner having availed the remedy of revision, considering the fact that the documents in dispute is dated 20.09.2013 whereas the cheque in question is dated 29.11.2013. No case is made out for sending the same to FSL.
9. The Misc. Petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
10. Stay application also stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
