IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43688-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.05.2026 Rajesh Goel ...Petitioner Versus Dinesh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Jasvinder Singh Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of order dated 05.08.2019 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri in criminal complaint No. NIA-678 of 2017, titled as Dinesh Kumar v. Rajesh Goyal filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the petitioner has been directed to give voice sample to expert for comparison with conversation contained in Compact Disk (CD) Ex.C12A.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner on the allegations that complainant had advanced a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- to him on 19.09.2016 for his personal use. On demand made by respondent/complainant, the accused, in order to discharge his legal liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 670601 dated 21.03.2017 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented by the complainant before its banker and it was returned with remarks ‘Payment stopped by drawer’. The complainant served legal notice dated 07.04.2017 upon the petitioner. He still failed to make payment of the amount of the cheque within prescribed period, thereby compelling the complainant to file the complaint.

3. As revealed from the record, the respondent complainant thereby filed an application under Sec 311 CrPC for adducing additional evidence and the same was allowed by learned JMIC, Jagadhri vide order dated 05.08.2019.

The operative part of order dated 05.08.2019 reads as under:

“By virtue of present application, applicant- complainant has sought a direction to accused to give his voice sample for comparison with voice recording contained in CD, which constitutes part of the record of the present case file. The only objection which has been taken by the learned counsel for accused is that application has been filed with the intention of harassing the accused and to delay the proceedings of the case. It shall not be out of place to mention at this juncture that complainant Dinesh Kumar had denied the factum regarding conversation contained in CD Ex.C12A during his cross-examination. In supra mentioned circumstances, it has become necessary to ascertain the fact as to whether voice of person featuring in conversation contained in CD is that of accused or not. Said examination is necessary in order to go to the root of the matter. Besides, no prejudice shall be caused to accused in case application in hand is allowed as accused will be provided with an proper opportunity to conduct cross-examination of expert sought to be examined by complainant in expert evidence.

However, this Court is of considered opinion that complainant must be directed to get compared the voice of accused with voice recording contained in CD Ex.C12A from some private agency and he shall be liable to bear the costs of the same. In light of afore-mentioned discussion, application in hand stands hereby allowed in afore-mentioned terms. Accused is directed to give his voice sample before expert to be arranged by the complainant for comparison with 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. conversation contained in CD Ex. C12A. Application stands disposed of in above stated terms. Now, case is adjourned to

23.08.2019, for expert evidence of complainant.”

4. Feeling aggrieved from the aforementioned order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. While issuing notice on motion, the operation of impugned order was stayed by this Court on 17.10.2019.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner