9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to get the documents relied upon by the Respondent/ Complainant sent for Forensic Analysis, has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated, Complaint case No.16320/2018 titled "M/s. Devvrat Impex Pvt Ltd vs. M/s. R.S. Infrawell India Pvt Ltd" has been filed under Section 138 N.I. Act by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners in regard to dishonour of cheques on account of "Drawers Signature differs". 3. It is submitted that the Petitioners/accused entered their first appearance on 26.04.2022 and only then they became aware of the pending proceedings. The statement of the Petitioners was recorded under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' herinafter). The Complainant was duly cross examined and discharged on 11.01.2023; ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge which has been dismissed on 29.11.2024 as not maintainable on the ground that no revision lies against an Interlocutory Order. 8. The impugned Order is challenged on the ground that the learned M.M has failed to give opportunity to the Petitioners to address the queries raised by the Court during the course of arguments on the Application, which has been dismissed on conjectures, surmises and presumptions which is impermissible in law. The learned M.M has failed to appreciate that the authenticity of the signatures on the Cheques and Receipts in question, are disputed and requires an intervention of an Expert Opinion of handwriting expert for just and fair adjudication. 9. The Petitioner has thus, sought setting aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch cannot be permitted. 15. In the first instance, after the statement of the Petitioners was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, final arguments were addressed and the case was reserved for Orders at which stage the Petitioners were permitted to further cross-examine the Complainant. Even thereafter, this Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been filed when the matter was listed for final arguments. This Application was for sending the cheques for forensic examination of the signatures especially when the Memo of dishonour of the cheques, itself stated that the signatures differed. 16. The learned M.M has rightly rejected the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C vide Order dated 15.05.2024. There is no merit in the present Petition w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
