Ravi Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Nayan Singh by Caste Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Mar 2026CRLMP/282/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 45 Evidence Act; Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination; disputed/fabricated signatures; allotment letter; prematurity of application; stage prior to framing of charge; trial under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC; criminal misc. petition disposed with liberty; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 282/2020; decision date 18/03/2026; ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.; Metropolitan Magistrate No.31 Jaipur; Criminal Case No.3208/2010.

What did the court decide?

Criminal misc. petition disposed of; liberty granted to the petitioner to submit an appropriate application at the appropriate stage of the trial if the trial is still pending; stay application and all pending applications also disposed of. ¶¶19

Ravi Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Nayan Singh by Caste… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the Metropolitan Magistrate's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for FSL examination of signatures on the disputed documents/allotment letter. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

The Trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the petitioner's application, and interference by this Court is not warranted.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The application was made at the pre-charge stage and was rejected only on the technical count of prematurity; the accused petitioner would have ample opportunity to lead his evidence regarding FSL examination of the signatures at the appropriate stage.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

If the petitioner submits an appropriate application at the appropriate stage of the trial, the Trial Court shall decide it strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.) disposed of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 282/2020 by order dated 18/03/2026. The petition challenged the order dated 11.10.2018 of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.3208/2010, rejecting the petitioner-accused's application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for FSL examination of signatures on the allotment letter in a trial for offences under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Held: the application had been filed at the pre-charge stage and rejected only on the technical count of prematurity; the Trial Court committed no error and interference was not warranted, since the accused would have ample opportunity to lead evidence on FSL examination at the appropriate stage. Petition disposed of with liberty to move the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, any such application to be decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 282/2020

¶3

Ravi Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Nayan Singh, R/o Plot No. 23, Shilp Colony, Police Station, Jhotwara,jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

18/03/2026

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

[CRLMP-282/2020]

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶21

KuD/12

Ravi Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Nayan Singh by Caste Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Nayan Singh by Caste Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Verma S/O Shri Ganesh Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pravin Kumar Varma S/O Shri Mahaveer Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Chusiram Meena S/O Mahadaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Puran Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ansar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.