Order

07/03/2025 This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner with a prayer to challenge the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Uchain, District Bharatpur, in criminal case No.96/2021 (Murari Lal Vs. Mukesh Kumar Sharma), whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner-Mukesh Kumar Sharma for sending the disputed cheques to the FSL Department for verification of his signatures was dismissed.

During course of arguments, it has come out that the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act filed by the complainant on

22.01.2021 is pending before the trial Court for final arguments.

On 19.11.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the counsel appearing for the petitioner to place on record the the next date of hearing and the matter was posted for

29.11.2024.

When the counsel appearing for the petitioner did not place on record the copy of cross examination of complainant- respondent No.2, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 granted the last opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to comply with the order dated

19.11.2024.

Again the petitioner on 23.01.2025 sought time to place on record certain documents but till date, the petitioner has not placed on record the copy of the cross examination of the complainant-respondent No.2. The aforesaid facts clearly speak the conduct of the petitioner that he just wants to get delay the conclusion of the case pending before the trial Court.

The facts borne out from the impugned order are that the complaint was filed on 21.01.2021 and the matter is presently at the final stage. The application filed by the petitioner for sending the disputed cheques to the FSL Department for verification of his signature on 08.08.2024, was dismissed vide order dated

18.09.2024.

The petitioner was directed to place on record the copy of cross examination of the complainant-respondent No.2 so as to see whether any such plea was taken or any such question was put to the complainant that the signature on the disputed cheques are forged one but the petitioner has failed to place on record the even after allowing him several opportunities.

After going through the material available on record, this Court finds that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the court below as the facts clearly speak the conduct of the petitioner that he just wants to delay the proceedings as he moved the appropriate application for sending the disputed cheques to the FSL Department for verification of the signature, more particularly, in the fact that he has not been able to show that the signature on the cheques are forged one, was his plea before the Court below.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J pcg/82 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)