The right of the complainant to obtain a second opinion at her own expense and the importance of timely disposal of the matter.

Om Prakash-VII, J.

Since the controversy involved in both the matters relates to same cheques in question and since both the aforesaid applications have been heard together, the Court proceeds to decide the same by a common judgment and order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State on both the applications.

3. The applicant, through the application under Section 482 No. - 32445 of 2015 has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the complaint case no.493 of 2015 (Raina Pandey Vs. Nisha Sharma) under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar as well as the order dated 8.10.2015 passed in the aforesaid case. Further prayer has been made to stay the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

4. In the application under Section 482 No.- 34876 of 2010, applicant had challenged the summoning order dated 27.2.2010 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Room No.9, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.1522 of 2010 (Smt. Raina Pandey Vs. Smt. Nisha Sharma) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In this matter, since the trial has reached at the stage of argument after conclusion of the evidence of the parties, therefore, no ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order at this stage, which was passed in the year 2010.

5. On the application under Section 482 No. - 32445 of 2015, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order passed by the court below on 8.10.2015 is against the law. In compliance of the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by this Court in the application u/s 482 No.-39929 of 2014, the cheque in question was sent to Government Handwriting Expert for obtaining the Expert's opinion in respect of the handwriting / signatures made on the said cheque. Handwriting Expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow submitted the report, which was available on record, but the court below ignoring this factual situation passed the order for obtaining a second opinion from another handwriting expert. Since a report of Handwriting Expert was already available on record, therefore, there was no occasion to send the cheques for second opinion from another handwriting expert. It was also argued that this Court has also directed the court concerned to dispose of the matter expeditiously, but this fact was also not taken into consideration. A contempt proceeding is going on against the concerned Presiding Officer before this Court. The evidence have been concluded. The Expert has been examined. Therefore, order passed by the court below for sending the cheques in question for a second opinion from another handwriting expert / private expert is an abuse of process of law. Referring the several orders passed by this Court and the other proceedings pending between the parties, it was also argued that the court concerned has committed illegality in passing the order dated 8.10.2015.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his contention :

1. Vimla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (1) NIJ 216

2. N. Chinnasamy Vs. P.S. Swaminathan, 2006 (4) CTC 850

3. Irulappan Vs. Meenakshisundaram, 1998 (3) CTC 140

4. Amaravathi Chits Investments Vs. T.M. Vaidyanathan, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 954

5. M/s. Disha Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Srinivasa Minerals and Traders Ltd. & Ors.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that no opportunity was given earlier to the opposite party to make effective rebuttal to the handwriting expert's opinion. Initially, at one point of time, samples of signatures were sent for verification, but the same handwriting expert asked for fresh samples of signatures. Thereafter, expert submitted the report on