High Court · 2025

2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant in both the applications that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the applications are being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 06.03.2000 with an allegation that the applicant herein with respect to discharge of its liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 3643696 dated 20.03.1998 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored as account closed on 04.01.2000 followed by a statutory demand notice dated

19.01.2000 and the complaint dated 05.03.2000. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned on 09.09.2002.

4. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant herein had preferred application u/s 482 No. 5966 of 2005 in which earlier an interim protection was accorded and thereafter the same came to be dismissed on 14.05.2019. An application came to be preferred by the applicant on 15.05.2024 for passing of an appropriate order by the court below for examination of the fact of forgery over the questioned cheque from forensic science laboratory. The said application on opposition by the opposite party no. 2 on

25.07.2024 came to be rejected on 24.02.2025 by the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Fast Track Court No. 2, Aligarh.

5. Questioning the said order, the present application has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the considerations which weighed with the court below while rejecting the said application are not sustainable in the eyes of law it was the consistent stand of the applicant right from the reply to the statutory demand notice dated 29.02.2002 wherein the applicant had alleged that there had been interpolations made in the cheque as the cheque was for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which had been made 5,00,000/-. He further submits that even at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C., the said issue was also raised followed by the stage of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He, however, submits that the court below has rejected the said application primarily on the ground that the case is proceeding at the stage of evidence and, thus, the said application is not be required to be allowed as in the prima facie view of the Magistrate, there was no overwriting or cutting in that regard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there but in order to give a fair trial to the accused, in case, doubt has arisen and there are strong compelling reasons for obtaining of a forensic report then the said application ought to have been allowed particularly when it is not a new fact which is being sought to be introduced as it was right from the very inception. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar : 2008 (5) SCC 633, judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M- 33407-2017 (Krishna Devi Shukla Vs. K.S. Oil Limited dated

23.05.2022 and the judgment of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in R/Special Criminal Application No. 11178 of 2021 (Shashikant Shamaldas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat.

7. Sri Pankaj Agarwal who appears for the opposite party no. 2 that though the proceedings came to be forestalled on account of the interim order passed in an application preferred by the applicant and thereafter the said application was dismissed, however, the endeavour of the applicant is to somehow linger on the proceedings, he, however, on instructions from his client submits that looking into the overall aspects of the matter, a direction be issued to the court below to decide the proceedings within a time bound manner while allowing the application for getting the forensic opinion report.

8. Learned AGA has also adopted the argument of the counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

9. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the material available on record.

10. Looking into the overall fact situation including the fact that the applicant has raised the issue regarding interpolations and the manipulations be done in the cheque at the stage when reply was given to the statutory demand notice, proceedings under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the settled principle of law that accused has a right to defend himself as a part or as is human and also fundamental right as enshrined under Section 21 of the Constitution of India and respectively following the judgment of the courts of law the Court finds that the court below has taken a hyper technical view and the order in question cannot be sustained. The application is decided in the following manner.- (a) the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Court No. 2, Aligarh in Case No. 2513 of 2007 is set aside; (b) the court below shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders for sending the matter for the forensic report; (c) for facilitation, the certified copy of the order dated be submitted before the court below by 27.08.2025; (d) the court below shall taken an endeavour to get the report from the forensic laboratory and proceed to decide the case strictly in accordance with the mandate contained under sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the NI Act; (e) at this stage, Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Agarwal counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as per the instructions from their clients submit that the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournment and, thus, it is provided that, in case, adjournment is accorded by the court below then the same should be in extreme circumstances that too not beyond seven days at a stretch.

11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Rajesh RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant in both the applications that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the applications are being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 06.03.2000 with an allegation that the applicant herein with respect to discharge of its liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 3643696 dated 20.03.1998 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored as account closed on 04.01.2000 followed by a statutory demand notice dated

19.01.2000 and the complaint dated 05.03.2000. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned on 09.09.2002.

4. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant herein had preferred application u/s 482 No. 5966 of 2005 in which earlier an interim protection was accorded and thereafter the same came to be dismissed on 14.05.2019. An application came to be preferred by the applicant on 15.05.2024 for passing of an appropriate order by the court below for examination of the fact of forgery over the questioned cheque from forensic science laboratory. The said application on opposition by the opposite party no. 2 on

25.07.2024 came to be rejected on 24.02.2025 by the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Fast Track Court No. 2, Aligarh.

5. Questioning the said order, the present application has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the considerations which weighed with the court below while rejecting the said application are not sustainable in the eyes of law it was the consistent stand of the applicant right from the reply to the statutory demand notice dated 29.02.2002 wherein the applicant had alleged that there had been interpolations made in the cheque as the cheque was for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which had been made 5,00,000/-. He further submits that even at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C., the said issue was also raised followed by the stage of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He, however, submits that the court below has rejected the said application primarily on the ground that the case is proceeding at the stage of evidence and, thus, the said application is not be required to be allowed as in the prima facie view of the Magistrate, there was no overwriting or cutting in that regard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there but in order to give a fair trial to the accused, in case, doubt has arisen and there are strong compelling reasons for obtaining of a forensic report then the said application ought to have been allowed particularly when it is not a new fact which is being sought to be introduced as it was right from the very inception. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar : 2008 (5) SCC 633, judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M- 33407-2017 (Krishna Devi Shukla Vs. K.S. Oil Limited dated

23.05.2022 and the judgment of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in R/Special Criminal Application No. 11178 of 2021 (Shashikant Shamaldas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat.

7. Sri Pankaj Agarwal who appears for the opposite party no. 2 that though the proceedings came to be forestalled on account of the interim order passed in an application preferred by the applicant and thereafter the said application was dismissed, however, the endeavour of the applicant is to somehow linger on the proceedings, he, however, on instructions from his client submits that looking into the overall aspects of the matter, a direction be issued to the court below to decide the proceedings within a time bound manner while allowing the application for getting the forensic opinion report.

8. Learned AGA has also adopted the argument of the counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

9. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the material available on record.

10. Looking into the overall fact situation including the fact that the applicant has raised the issue regarding interpolations and the manipulations be done in the cheque at the stage when reply was given to the statutory demand notice, proceedings under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the settled principle of law that accused has a right to defend himself as a part or as is human and also fundamental right as enshrined under Section 21 of the Constitution of India and respectively following the judgment of the courts of law the Court finds that the court below has taken a hyper technical view and the order in question cannot be sustained. The application is decided in the following manner.- (a) the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Court No. 2, Aligarh in Case No. 2513 of 2007 is set aside; (b) the court below shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders for sending the matter for the forensic report; (c) for facilitation, the certified copy of the order dated be submitted before the court below by 27.08.2025; (d) the court below shall taken an endeavour to get the report from the forensic laboratory and proceed to decide the case strictly in accordance with the mandate contained under sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the NI Act; (e) at this stage, Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Agarwal counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as per the instructions from their clients submit that the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournment and, thus, it is provided that, in case, adjournment is accorded by the court below then the same should be in extreme circumstances that too not beyond seven days at a stretch.

11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Rajesh RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad