JUDGMENT :

M. R. MENGDEY, J.

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and or certiorari quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana dated 19.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.100 of 2023.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings arising out of the order passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana dated 19.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.100 of 2023.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate Mr. S. S. Brahmbhatt waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State and respondent no.2, respectively.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing the present petition are such that the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint against Respondent no.2 herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana which has been registered as Criminal Case No.2577 of 2020. During the course of trial for the said offence after the evidence of the complainant was over, the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was recorded. Thereafter, Respondent no.2 herein submitted an application before the learned trial Court vide Exh-54 invoking the provisions of Section 311(A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and prayed that the disputed cheques i.e. Exh-14 to 18 and documents on record vide Exh-45 to 47 be sent for examination to the handwriting expert. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 23.12.2023.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, Respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision Application No.100 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana. The learned Sessions Court vide impugned order allowed the said Revision Application and directed that the cheques and documents referred to herein above be sent to the handwriting expert. It is against this order that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

5. Learned advocate Shri Jigar Gadhvi appearing for the petitioner submitted that Respondent no.2 herein has submitted an application vide Exh-54 before the learned trial Court by invoking the provisions under Section 311(A) of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that the provision of Section 311(A) would come into play only when the person whose specimen handwriting or signature is sought to be collected has been arrested at some point of time in connection with the proceedings in question. By submitting an application vide Exh-54, Respondent no.2 has sought the handwriting of the son of the petitioner to be collected and sent to the handwriting expert for examination along with the documents referred herein above. It is an admitted position that the son of the petitioner has not been arrested as an accused in connection with the present offence and therefore, the provision of Section 311(A) would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that it is the case of Respondent no.2 herein that the details in the disputed cheques have been filled up by the son of the petitioner. However, it is a settled law that once the signed cheque has been handed over to the complainant, other details on the cheque can be filled up by anybody. He further submitted that the trial is at the stage of evidence of defence and if Respondent no.2 is desirous of examining the son of the petitioner as a defence witness, he can do so and during his examination questions can be put to him with regard to the wr