1 2025:CGHC:32911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2201 of 2025 1 - Chandrabhan Sahu S/o Shankarlal Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Deradih Police Chowki Giraudhpuri P.S. Gidhouri District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - M/s Vikas Traders Proprietor Vivek Sahu S/o Rajnarayan Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Pahanda Road Bolodabazar- P.S. And Tehsil Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 15/07/ 2025 1. This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the order dated 20.06.2025, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in CRR No. 11/2025 upholding the order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, in Negotiable Instruments Case No. 19/2019. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.18 10:28:39 +0530 2 Additionally, the petitioner seeks a direction for forensic examination of the cheque by a handwriting expert. 2. The facts of the case are that a cheque given by the petitioner to Heeralaal Agrawal as a security for business transactions about 9 years ago. The cheque was signed but not filled in with details like date, name, amount, or figures. The petitioner alleges that the cheque was misused by Heeralal Agrawal in collusion with the respondent to extort money. The petitioner claims that the details of cheque, including the date, name, amount, and figures, were filled in without their consent. The trial court has rejected the petitioner's application seeking examination of the cheque by a handwriting expert. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 20.06.2025 and 23.04.2025, passed by the trial court and the revisional court, respectively, are erroneous, illegal, and contrary to law. It is argued that the cheque in question was issued about 9 years ago, and at the time of issuance, the amount and date were not filled in. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to have the handwriting on the cheque examined by a handwriting expert to determine its authenticity. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order sheets of the Trial Court. 5. Upon examination the order passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court, and considering the application dated 23.04.2025, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 3 wherein the petitioner admitted that the signature on the cheque is his own. Consequently, the order passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court is neither invalid nor is there any need to interfere in it. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.