IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2026 Reserved on: 24.03.2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 Pawan Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Kamal Jeet .... Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the petitioner : Mr Surender K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the order dated 21.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the application filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) for sending the cheque

1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

for comparison was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed befor.e the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts givingH rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The accused filed an application for comparison of his signatures, asseruting that the accused had never signed the cheque or woritten its contents. The complainant had got it signed and got it written by someone. The signatures of the accused and the contents of the cheque are required to be compared to determine whether they are in the handwriting of the accused or not.

3. The application was opposed by the complainant, asserting that the cheque was handed over by the accused to the complainant. The application was filed for delaying the trial; hence, it was prayed that it be dismissed.

4. Learned Trial Court held that the signatures/handwriting can be compared with the admitted signatures/handwriting. The accused did not produce any admitted handwriting/signatures to enable the comparison.

The complainant had specifically stated that the cheque. was handed over to him by the accused in his shop, in the presence of his father. The accused had an effiHcacious remedy of examining his father. There was no necessity to send the cheque for comparison at this stage; hence, the application was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, theu accused has filed the present revision asserting thoat the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The accused had not issued the cheque. He had not signed it. The complainant got the cheque signed by someone. The signatures are required to be compared to establish the defence taken by the accused. Therefore, it was iprayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

6. Mr Surinder K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The accused had specifically taken a defence that the cheque was not signed by him, and he was entitled to prove the defence taken by him.

The dismissal of the application has prejudiced him; hence, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the .order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

7. I have given a considerablHe thought to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The accused has filed a revision dismissing the application for sending the cheque for comparison. It was held by this court in Vishwa Narayan Goswami Vs. Ram Rattan Sharma, latest HLJ 2009(1) 552, that an order dismissing an application for leading additional evidence is an interlocutory order, which is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. It was observed: -

H “7. The first question staring at the face is whether the order passed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Magistrate is an "interlocutory order" and not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. M