Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010262152022 2025:GAU-AS:2789 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./603/2022 SAMPA BISWAS W/O LATE UTPAL BISWAS, R/O BARPETA ROAD, KALAHABHANGA, WARD NO. 10, P.O. AND P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:RAJEEV VERMA S/O LATE RADHESHYAM VERMA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF A-202 SAMRDHI RESIDENCY MAHAL ROAD JAGATPURA JAIPUR RAJASTHAN- 302017 INDIA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOWLY TOWN WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S.- HOWLY DIST.- BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DILIP DEY, MS T NANDI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. GAURAV R DUTTA (R-2),MR. A R BAROOAH (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 17.03.2025 Heard Mr. D. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. A. R. Borooah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, praying for the setting aside and quashing of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barpeta, in connection with N.I. Case No. 156/2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, whereby the Court took cognizance against the petitioner after finding sufficient material against him. 3. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that during the pendency of this case, both parties entered into a compromise agreement. Pursuant to this settlement, the petitioner has already returned the entire cheque amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), which has been duly accepted by respondent No. 2 under the condition that the matter has been amicably settled outside the Court and that the said payment shall be considered a full and final settlement. He further submits that despite this compromise, the learned Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2022, and hence, the order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Borooah, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that from the outset, respondent No. 2 has denied entering into any settlement agreement or affixing his signature to such an agreement. Page No.# 3/4 Furthermore, he contends that the signature purportedly executed by respondent No. 2 does not match the signature on the complaint petition, which can be seen even with the bare eye. He, therefore, submits that the matter should be remanded to the learned Trial Court with a direction to send the disputed signature of respondent No. 2 for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). 5. In this regard, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that since respondent No. 2 has challenged the authenticity of the signature on the compromise agreement, the matter may appropriately be remanded to the learned Trial Court for further examination. 6. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, it is seen that the compromise agreement, which the petitioner relies upon, is being contested by respondent No. 2. The said respondent No.2 states that he neither signed the agreement nor entered into any settlement with the petitioner, and further, he never received the cheque amount back from the accused/petitioner. The learned Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner despite the production of the purported compromise agreement. However, there is no mention of the said agreement being formally considered by the Court while taking cognizance. However, I find no irregularity or illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court taking cognizance of the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide order dated 16.11.2022 and accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barpeta, in connection with N.I. Case No. 156/2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and accordingly, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. 7. Since the validity of the compromise agreement is under challenge, and Page No.# 4/4 considering the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, the learned Trial Court may take necessary steps to send the disputed signature of respondent No. 2 for forensic examination and comparison with the questioned document, i.e., the compromise agreement. 8. With above observation, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant