1 2025:CGHC:650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 731 of 2022 Preetam Singh Rajput S/o Shri Bharat Singh Rajput Aged About 35 Years R/o Barampur, Near New Sai Mandir , Azad Nagar, Durpa , Korba, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Santosh Kumar Nishad S/o J.R. Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Railway Crrosing , Lalkhadan, Torwa , Police Station Torwa , Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Prashant Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the CrPC being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed in Criminal Revision No.141/2021 passed by 2 the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the revision filed by the accused/petitioner was dismissed. 3. Facts of this case in brief is that, the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint case before trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused and stated that, accused is the friends of the complainant and for discharging the legal debt the accused had issued the cheque bearing No.015635 for the Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh only), but same was dishonoured due to insufficient balance in the account of the accused, after receiving the memo respondent/complainant had sent legal demand notice to the accused, when the accused did not pay the money in prescribed time, complainant has filed the complaint case against the accused. After registration of the case before trial Court summons was issued and accused was appeared before the Court. At the time of charge, accused denied the allegation and stated that, he do not know the complainant and also denied the signature of the cheque and filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for taking opinion of the handwriting expert, which was previously rejected by the trial Court on the ground that application is pre-mature and can be filed at the stage of defence evidence on dated 11.09.2017. 4. After completion of the complainant evidence the accused lead himself evidence under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. and again filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 3 5. After hearing the both the party learned trial Court had dismissed the well reasoned application of the petitioner on 21.10.2021. Being aggreieved by the order of the trial court accused/petitioner had file revision under Section 397/399 of the Cr.P.C. before the revisional Court which was also dismissed by passing the impugned order. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order may be set aside and allow the application of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the impugned order is illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended that, the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court have committed grave error of law and rejected the well reasoned application of the accused/petitioner. He further contended that, before passing of the order learned trial Court has not considering the fact and defence of the petitioner/accused that, he questioning the signature of the cheque, therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the impugned order 30.03.2022 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the order passed by the learned revisional Court is just and proper and needs no interference. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned passed and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of by giving an opportunity to the accused/petitioner that he himself shall examine the cheque in question by a handwriting expert and trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. 10. With the above direction, the instant CrMP stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.02.28 10:58:37 +0530