HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9291 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Gyanesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dharmendra Gupta, Advocate, who has filed his power today on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated 31.05.2025 passed by Session Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 292 of 2025 whereby the revision filed by the applicants have been dismissed and the order dated 21.04.2025 has been affirmed. Under challenge is also the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.5, Lucknow (in short "trial Court") in Complaint Case No. 24446 of 2021 whereby the application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act filed by the applicants herein has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants moved an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further submits that the cheque was issued by way of guarantee by the applicants and the same is liable to be examined by the hand-writing expert and requested to call upon the hand-writing expert to prove the cheque. 4. Sri Dharmendra Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been completed and it is admitted case that the applicants had advanced the cheque as security Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanesh Kumar Singh, Gaurav Singh, Sachin Kumar, Shailesh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Chandra Gupta And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) sent by them. The matter was adjudicated by the trial Court and the finding has been recorded that in the cross-examination applicant no.2/Meera Gupta has admitted on record that she has signed the cheque pertaining to Rs.3,14,685/- and she has admitted that signature was made by her, however, the words on the cheque have not been written by her. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that once the chqeue has been signed and the same has been used as security, there is no need to call the hand-writing expert. 5. Sri Dharmendra Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has relied on the paragraph 21 of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 614, which is extracted herein-under :- 21. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. “Security” in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time-frame and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of the NI Act would flow. 6. He has submitted that the security cheque can always be realized and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties, this Court finds that that once it is admitted by the applicant no.2 that cheque was signed by her then, there is no reason to call upon the hand-writing expert, that too when proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been A482 No. 9291 of 2025 2 concluded/completed and ample opportunity was already available to the applicants and the same was not availed. 8. In view of the aforesaid,the application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. November 13, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 9291 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench