HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6555/2019 Kalu S/o Shri Ramdas, R/o Opposite Quarter No.136, VPL Quarter House, Haribhau Vistar, Kotda, Ajmer, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus Ram Babu Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Hanuman Prasad Khandelwal, R/o Opposite Laxmi Palace, Near Vishram Sthali, Pushkar Road, Ajmer, Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Amit Dadhich JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2026 1. By way of fling the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Ajmer, by which the application submitted by the petitioner for sending the cheques and endorsement made thereupon to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘FSL’) for analysis of handwriting and endorsement made in the cheques, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question were never issued by the petitioner to the complainant-respondent, rather the same were issued to one Daulat Bairwa, but the same have been misused by the complainant-respondent, for which a report has been registered (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6555/2019] against him with the Police Station Ganj, Ajmer, wherein statements of the petitioner have been recorded. Counsel submits that when the cheques in question do not bear the handwriting of the petitioner, the same are required to be analyzed by the FSL, that is why, an application in this regard was submitted, but the same has been rejected erroneously by the Trial Court. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Trial Court should have sent the cheques in question for its analyzation to the FSL. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kishore Kumar Tank vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3303/2016) decided on 03.08.2016. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the accused-petitioner and submits that the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that this fact has not been disputed by the accused-petitioner that the cheques in question do not bear his signatures. The only dispute which has been raised before the Trial Court and before this Court is that the endorsement made on the cheques in question is not in the handwriting of the petitioner. In fact, the said cheques were (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6555/2019] issued to one Daulat Bairwa, but the same have been misused by the complainant-respondent. 6. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the identical provision, which reads as under: “20. Inchoate stamped instruments.—Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in [India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.” 7. Perusal of the aforesaid provision contained under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly indicates that if the cheque has been issued, it shall be presumed that the same has been issued by the signatory. Whether the same has been misused by the complainant or not, certainly this is a defence of the accused, which would be adjudicated by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. For that purpose, endorsement made on the subject cheques is not required to be sent to the FSL for its analysis, unless and until the signatures on the cheques are denied or disputed by the accused. 8. This Court finds no error in the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6555/2019] 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition as well as the stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/43