[2025:RJ-JP:34760] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3071/2025 Devika Nagpal Wife Of Shri Tejinder Nagpal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Shivam Apartment, 7A, Kriplani Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Pin-302004. ----Petitioner Versus Apoorv Mittal Son Of Late Shri Trilok Chand Mittal, Resident Of 4B19, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Pin-302004 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.N. Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Tibrewal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/08/2025 1. With consent of counsel for both parties, the petition has been heard on merits finally. 2. Accused-petitioner has impugned the interlocutory dated 21.04.2025, passed in Criminal Case No.63711/2019, by the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan II, dismissing petitioner's application to send cheque in question to FSL, to match signature of cheque drawer with the signature of petitioner-accused. 3. It appears that respondent-complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the accused-petitioner in respect of dishonour of cheque dated 03.08.2018 amounting Rs. 7,25,000/- (Exhibit P-1). It is not in dispute that cheque has been issued in favour of complainant from a joint account in Bank of Baroda in the name of (i) Devika Nagpal (accused-petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:34760] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3071/2025] herein) (ii) Tejinder Nagpal (husband of accused petitioner) and (iii) Shruti Nagpal (daughter of accused-petitioner). The cheque has been signed by Tejinder Nagpal and criminal complaint has been filed against accused-petitioner. 4. It is noteworthy that in the statement of complainant, he deposed that signature, marked A to B, is of accused-petitioner. In counter thereto, in the statement of accused-petitioner, she has denied the signature, marked A to B, on the cheque as her signature and admits that the signature appears to be of her husband. 5. Accused-petitioner, at the stage of defence evidence, moved an application, in order to match the disputed signature with her admitted signature and she made a prayer to send cheque in question to FSL. That prayer has been rejected by the trial Court vide order impugned, stating inter alia that similar application, filed by accused-petitioner, has already been dismissed in the same proceedings vide order dated 15.05.2024. 6. Counsel for petitioner has placed on record the specimen signatures of all three joint account holders viz. Devika Nagpal, Tejinder Nagpal and Shruti Nagpal, supplied to him under RTI Act. A copy of same has been provided to the counsel for complainant. Counsel for complainant, having seen all three signatures from the naked eyes, is convinced that signature on the cheque in question (Exhibit P-1) is not of accused-petitioner- Devika Nagpal, but similar to the signature of her husband- Tejinder Nagpal. 7. In view of above, it is hereby observed that during course of arguments, counsel for complainant does not dispute that the [2025:RJ-JP:34760] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3071/2025] signature on the cheque in question, marked A to B, is not of accused-petitioner- Devika Nagpal, but cheque was signed by her husband- Tejinder Nagpal. However, his submission is that since accused-petitioner is the co-account holder, hence, she is also responsible for dishonour of cheque in question and proceedings under Section 138 NI Act can been proceeded against her as well. 8. In view of statements of counsel for complainant, it is no more in dispute that the signature on the cheque in question, marked A to B, is not of accused-petitioner, rather such signature is of petitioner’s husband. 9. In such view of matter, there is no reason to call for FSL report, in respect of the signature on the cheque in question and the issue becomes redundant. 10. Accordingly, instead of quashing the order impugned dated 21.04.2025, this Court deems it just and proper to observe that trial Court may proceed to decide the criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act on merits, taking note of fact that signature on the cheque in question is not of accused-petitioner but of her husband and accused-petitioner is the co-account holder. 11. With the aforesaid, instant misc. petition is disposed of. Interim stay order dated 23.05.2025 comes to an end. 12. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 13. A copy of this Order be sent to the trial Court. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/136