( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3657 of 2025 Ramai Melgandi @ Ramai Hoe @ Ramay Ho, aged about 39 years, S/o Nandu Hoe @ Nandu Ho, Resident of Village –Nandup, P.O. Sundarnagar, P.S. –Sundarnagar, Town –Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive (POCSO) Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 1629 of 2025 arising out of Special POCSO Case No. 50 of 2022 corresponding to Sundernagar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Special Judge rejected the petition dated 02.08.2025 filed by the petitioner for appointment of the handwriting expert for its opinion as to the genuineness of the signature of the prosecutrix made on the F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext –P1 (P.W.3). The handwriting expert was expected ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 to submit its opinion, after comparison of the signature made by the prosecutrix on her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which was marked Ext.-P2 during the trial. 3. The brief fact of the case is that it is the defence of the petitioner who is the accused person of the said case that a lady constable namely Sushma Toppo has signed the F.I.R. of the case by impersonating as the victim and on the basis of the forged signature, the F.I.R. has been instituted; so the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated. The undisputed fact remains that after the petitioner examined two witnesses in his defence, the petitioner filed an application dated 02.08.2025 before the trial court to pass orders for appointing a handwriting expert, to report as to the genuineness of the signature of the informant on the F.I.R. by comparing the said signature with the signature of the informant appearing on the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge considered that F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and apparently keeping in mind that whether or not the signature of the informant appears on the F.I.R. cannot be a determining factor in establishing the guilt of the petitioner-accused person of the case, rejected the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hussain Bin Awaz Vs. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Ors. dated 04.11.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13354 of 2025 wherein the ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in a suit for declaration and injunction, since the plaintiff has to prove its case, Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked for an admitted document, for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting. It is next submitted that thus the petitioner was well within his right to obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert as to the genuineness or otherwise of the signature of the informant appearing in the First Information Report. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Special Judge, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by rejecting the said prayer. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that it is a settled principle of law that the evidence of a handwriting expert is not a substantive piece of evidence. The same is opinion evidence and very weak in character. The testimony of the handwriting expert is not binding upon the Court. It is then submitted that a signature can be proved by any person acquainted with the signature of the person who has made it. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that P.W.1 –victim has categorically stated in her deposition that she is the person who has signed the First Information Report and upon her so admitting and identifying her signature; her signature has also been marked Exhibit. It is ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 then submitted that as rightly observed by the learned trial court also, the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence. The trial court has the occasion to see the demeanour of the P.W.1 and the trial court can appreciate the evidence of the P.W.1 in respect of her testimony that she is the person who has signed the F.I.R. which has been marked Exhibit. Otherwise also, whether or not the signature of the victim is appearing in the F.I.R. does not have much bearing on the final outcome of the trial as the same being a insignificant one for the reason that immediately after registering the F.I.R., the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim has been recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate who has also been examined as P.W.7 during the trial. It is not the case of the defence that the victim has not signed the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. rather the petitioner –accused person admits that the victim has signed the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is not much difference or departure between the two signatures made on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R. even though the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded soon after registration of the F.I.R.. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not instituted in a separate criminal case against the constable namely Sushma Toppo for having committed forgery. Under such circumstances, it being the discretion of the learned Special Judge concerned, the learned Special Judge has rightly used his discretion not to send the document to the handwriting expert ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 that too at the belated stage, which will only delay the trial of the case and is of not much consequence. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the impugned order, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, so far as the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hussain Bin Awaz Vs. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Ors. (supra) is concerned, in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has only opined that Section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only be invoked for admitted document for the purpose of comparison of signature or handwriting but the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India therein has not laid down the law that in all cases, when there is an admitted signature or a disputed signature, the same has to be send to the handwriting expert but only opined that the opinion of a handwriting expert may be obtained by the court, if the authenticity of a signature or writing is major point of contention having some bearing on the outcome of the case. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, in this case the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence. True it is, in rare cases like where an F.I.R. is a dying declaration, such F.I.R. may be substantive piece of evidence but the F.I.R. in this case can only be used for the purpose of corroboration/contradiction of the testimony of the witness. The undisputed fact remains that soon after the lodging ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 of the F.I.R., the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim has been recorded. It is even the admitted case of the petitioner- accused person that the signature of the victim is appearing in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 8. It is a settled law that the testimony of a handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence and it is highly unsafe to pass conviction on such type of evidence. In the case of Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1979 INSC 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the evidence in form of opinion of a handwriting expert is an opinion evidence. The science of identification of a person on the basis of his handwriting and signature is based on assumptions that although a person’s handwriting may vary as to its precise details yet in its general habitual characteristics, it is the same as personality of a person enters into his handwriting and becomes an unconscious and dominant habit which gives identity to every handwriting. On account of the very nature of the evidence of handwriting and signature identification, it is not to be an exact science like identification of the person on the basis of his fingerprints, D.N.A. and other biometric parameters. So, the opinion of handwriting expert is very weak evidence; which should be taken with caution and is not reliable unless supported by independent evidence. 9. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act only lays down that inter- alia when the court has to form an opinion upon the point that persons specially skilled in questions as to identity of handwriting ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 are relevant facts and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act vests the power with the court that for the purpose of ascertaining inter alia whether a signature, writing etc. purports to have been written or made by comparing the same with any admitted signature. 10. It is a settled principle of law that the expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not binding on the court as it is only advisory in nature. Whether such an opinion should be admitted and how much weight should be given to it are aspects which ultimately lie within the domain of the court as evidence of an expert is liable to be entertained like any other evidence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that it is essentially within the judicious discretion of the court depending upon the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it; to seek or not to seek the expert’s opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, since the victim herself is claiming to have signed the First Information Report and as already discussed above, whether or not, the victim has signed the F.I.R. in the facts of the case is of not much consequence having any bearing on the final outcome of the trial. So, in such facts of ( 2025:JHHC:38712 ) 8 Cr.M.P. No.3657 of 2025 the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality by using its discretion, not to seek the opinion of the handwriting expert as prayed for by the accused-petitioner in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/01/2026