JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred praying for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Barmer in Criminal Revision No. 176/2018(11/2018) as well as order dated 20.01.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No. 406/2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the order, dated 05.02.2019, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Barmer whereby the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No. 406/2017 was upheld, and dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, allowing the application filed by the respondent no. 2 summoning the handwriting expert in evidence.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint against the accused respondent no.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer with the averments that accused respondent no. 2, against certain outstanding dues, issued a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-which upon being presented before the concerned bank, was dishonored due to insufficient funds. And that the petitioner sent a legal notice to accused respondent no.2 through his legal counsel but despite service of such legal notice, requisite payment was not made by the accused respondent no. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused respondent no. 2 submitted an application before the learned Court below stating therein that the accused respondent no. 2 sent the cheque for the purpose of F.S.L. to a handwriting expert, without the permission of the concerned Court. And that, on this count alone, the application so preferred, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the accused respondent no. 2 and ordered to summon one Ramesh Thakur, the handwriting and fingerprint expert in evidence. And that the petitioner preferred a revision petition against the said order, but the same came to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Bayya Mohana Rao and Anr. Vs. Parsia Bala Subrahmanyeswara Rao 2007 SCC OnLine AP 258 wherein the Hon’ble Court ruled, in a similar set of facts and circumstances, the respondent in the said case chose to send the disputed documents and certified copies of the Vakalat, pleadings, etc. to an expert of his volition, which was held it to be an infirmity.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is sustainable in the eye of law, being also in accordance with settled legal principles, coupled with consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Learned counsel for the private respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S. Sampoornam 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 453 wherein the following observations were made:-

“It is not in dispute that the appellant at the initial stage of her appearance before the Magistrate had filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. in which she had categorically denied her signature on the cheque and its delivery to the respondent besides raising other preliminary objections in opposition to the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Act. From the record, it appears that the said application was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that the genuineness of the signature can be questioned only at the time of trial. The appellant accepted the correctnes