1 2025:CGHC:24854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1865 of 2025 1 - Chetan Anaaj Bhandar Through Its Proprietor - Chetan Jain, Age About 39 Years, S/o Shri Bhavar Lal Jain, R/o Village - Beeja, Post - Devarbeeja, Tehsil - Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.), (Accused) 2 - Chetan Jain S/o Shri Bhavar Lal Jain Aged About 39 Years Proprietor Of Chetan Anaaj Bhandar, R/o Village - Beeja, Post - Devarbeeja, Tehsil - Saja, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Sahdeo Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Lalpur, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.), (Complainant) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17/06/ 2025 Heard. 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.18 16:02:43 +0530 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 23-04-2025 passed by learned 1st Addtional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.143/2024, arising out of the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 2590/2021. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent preferred a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioners. During the pendency of the case, petitioners preferred application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act by stating that one blank cheque was handed over to the complainant because there was business relation between applicant and complainant and the said cheque was issued as a security to the respondent and the respondent has intentionally and deliberately misused the cheque by presenting the same to the bank. The said application was rejected by the learned JMFC vide order dated 13.09.2023 which has been affirmed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge vide order dated 23.04.2025. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent received blank cheque from Petitioner Chetan Jain and he misused the said cheque and filled them himself and filed a complaint against the petitioners. The handwriting of the said cheques is in different times and by the different person, regarding which an application under Section 45 of Evidence Act was filed by the Petitioners for examination of handwriting which was rejected by the learned JMFC and affirmed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge without considering that the above fact. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 23.04.2025 may be set aside and the applicant may kindly be permitted to adduce expert evidence. 3 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the impugned order. 5. The main contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the cheques which were given to the Respondent were security cheques and were blank cheques which were filled by the Respondent and presented in the bank, but the signature made on the said cheques was admitted by the Petitioner. The learned JMFC has also concluded which was affirmed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner has not denied the fact that the signed cheques were issued by him to the complainant/respondent. 6. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the above finding of learned JMFC which was affirmed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge is based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor is there any need to interfere in it. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham