Repeated handwriting-expert requests in cheque dishonour cases are interlocutory and not revisable when signatures were already compared.

A repeated request for examination of a handwriting expert under Section 243(2) CrPC, after earlier applications for the same relief had already been rejected, was treated as interlocutory and not amenable to revision. The court noted that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the bank manager supported that position, and the Magistrate's comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act showed no variation. In these circumstances, the later application was effectively a review of an earlier decision and was properly rejected as vexatious and dilatory, leaving the complaint proceedings to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dismissing the accused's application for examination of a handwriting expert under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was interlocutory and therefore not revisable; (ii) Whether the accused was entitled to seek examination of a handwriting expert after earlier similar applications had been dismissed and the cheque had been returned by the bank for insufficiency of funds.

Issue (i): Whether the order dismissing the accused's application for examination of a handwriting expert under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was interlocutory and therefore not revisable.

Analysis: The application under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected by the Magistrate after earlier requests for the same relief had already been decided against the accused. The order did not finally determine any substantive right in the complaint and arose at the defence-evidence stage. In that context, the order was treated as interlocutory. A revision against such an order was therefore not maintainable.

Conclusion: The revision before the Additional Sessions Judge was not maintainable against the Magistrate's interlocutory order.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled to seek examination of a handwriting expert after earlier similar applications had been dismissed and the cheque had been returned by the bank for insufficiency of funds.

Analysis: The accused had already filed earlier applications under Sections 311 and 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the same purpose, and those applications had been dismissed. The cheque had been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, not for mismatch of signatures, and the bank manager supported that position. The Magistrate had also compared the signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and found no variation. In these circumstances, the later application was in substance a request for review and was rightly rejected as vexatious and dilatory.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to a further opportunity to examine a handwriting expert on the same issue.

Final Conclusion: The High Court set aside the revisional order, upheld the Magistrate's dismissal of the application, and left the complaint proceedings to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeated request for handwriting-expert examination on an issue already decided, particularly where the cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the Magistrate has compared the signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, does not warrant revisional interference, and a revision against such an interlocutory order is not maintainable.

---