JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of order dated 06.02.2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby the application filed by the petitioner, seeking permission to examine the handwriting and fingerprint expert and allow him to take photographs of the relevant writing/ signatures for comparison, was dismissed, in the case stemming from criminal complaint dated 24.07.2015 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter NI Act').

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that petitioner No.2 is operating a petrol pump in the name of Aum Oil (petitioner No.1) on Sirsal Road, Habri, Kaithal, since July, 2009. Since the parties had a friendly relation, petitioner No.2 and her husband borrowed Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant to facilitate smooth functioning of the business. In order to discharge their legal liability, petitioner No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.365030 dated 19.05.2015 for Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. However, on presentation for encashment, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 19.05.2015, with remarks- exceed arrangement.' Consequently, a legal notice dated 10.06.2015 was served on petitioner No.2. Since she failed to make the requisite payment within the stipulated time, complaint(supra) was instituted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the affairs of the said petrol pump were being managed by one Gulab Singh. On 30.09.2014, when petitioner No.2 and her husband approached Gulab Singh to obtain the accounts, it was discovered that he had misappropriated funds. Gulab Singh neither handed over the complete record of accounts nor returned the blank cheques signed by petitioner No.2. Consequently, FIR No.361 dated 12.12.2015 was registered against Gulab Singh and two other employees, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Pundri. Subsequently, Gulab Singh fraudulently issued the said blank cheques to his relatives, including cheque (Supra). As such, an application was moved before the learned trial Court, seeking permission for comparing handwriting/signatures of Gulab Singh, Anil Kumar and Subhash Chand in relation to the disputed cheque. Moreover, the petitioners have already been acquitted in the complaints filed by Satbir Singh, Hari Om Traders through its proprietor Gulab Singh and Satish Singh respectively (Annexure P-12 to P14). The learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the said application as comparison of handwriting/signatures is vital to just adjudication of the case.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no nexus with the persons whose handwriting was sought for comparison. As far as FIR No.361 (supra) is concerned, the same was found to be false and a cancellation report was filed in this regard on 14.05.2016. In fact, the petitioner has concealed the fact that the FIR No.361 (supra) was cancelled 07 months prior to filing of the present petition. The order dated 23.02.2017 whereby notice of motion was issued was obtained by falsely implying that the FIR No.361 (supra) is pending. Finally, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the State Crime Branch was also ordered to be cancelled as it was found no such incidence had occurred.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the respondent happens to be the relative of Gulab Singh, who was entrusted with running everyday operations of petitioner No.1-petrol pump, owned by petitioner No.2. It is the case of the petitioners that Gulab Singh has misused the signed blank cheques and distributed them to his relatives, in order to avenge registration of FIR (supra) by petitioner No.2, against him.

6. Admittedly, the disputed cheque has be