HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 282/2020 Ravi Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Nayan Singh, R/o Plot No. 23, Shilp Colony, Police Station, Jhotwara,jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.3208/2010, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for examination of signatures on the allotment letter from Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘FSL’) has been rejected. 2. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468 471 and 120-B IPC. An application was submitted by the petitioner before the Trial Court under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed signatures of the administrator to FSL for its analysis. The aforesaid application has been rejected. (2 of 2) [CRLMP-282/2020] 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that signatures on the disputed documents are fabricated, hence, analysis of the same is required to be conducted by the FSL. Counsel submits that the Court below has erroneously rejected the application, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Perusal of the order indicates that at the stage prior to framing of the charge, the aforesaid application was submitted and the same was rejected only on a technical count that at a very premature stage, the application has been submitted. The accused petitioner would have ample opportunity to lead his evidence with regard to FSL examination of the signatures at the appropriate stage. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate application at the appropriate stage of the trial, in case the trial is still pending. 7. If such application is submitted by the petitioner, the same would be decided by the Trial Court strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/12