1 2025:CGHC:61573 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1302 of 2025 Smt. Shilpa Kaushik W/o Late Shri Harish Kaushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Raipur Road, Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhata, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Tahsil Parsada wrongly mentioned in Order Sheet) ... Petitioner(s) versus Santram Sahu S/o Shri Tazan Prasad Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Tifra, P.S. Civil Lines (Now P.S. Sirgitti), Dist - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma & Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/12/2025 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 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.571/2016, whereby the learned JMFC has rejected the application for examination of signature and details mentioned in Cheque No.200112 through the hand writing expert. 3. Facts of this case in brief are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that on the assurance of providing a job by the petitioner and her late husband, he arranged ₹73,00,000/- from relatives and friends. After the death of the petitioner’s husband on 17.12.2015, no job was provided and the complainant demanded return of money. It is alleged that the petitioner issued Cheque No. 200112 dated 24.04.2016 for the said amount, which was dishonoured on presentation with the remark “Account Closed.” Legal notice was served and the complaint was filed on 08.07.2016. The petitioner denied issuance and signature of the cheque, stating that the cheque was fraudulently obtained and misused. She applied for examination of her signature and endorsements through a handwriting expert, which was rejected by the Trial Court. A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed before the High Court, which granted liberty to file a fresh application after adducing evidence. Despite this, the Trial Court again rejected the fresh application. The petitioner contends that the cheque relates to a joint account already closed on 11.01.2016, that she neither received any money nor assured any job, and that examination of the cheque through a handwriting expert is 3 essential for a just and proper adjudication of the complaint. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper, and contrary to law. The Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application without appreciating that the petitioner has denied her signature and issuance of the cheque, making examination by a handwriting expert necessary for a just decision. The Court ignored that the cheque pertained to a joint account primarily operated by the petitioner’s late husband, who had expired prior to the cheque’s presentation, and that the account had already been closed. It also failed to consider that there was no transaction or liability of the petitioner towards the complainant, nor any allegation of fraud supported by a police complaint. The Trial Court further erred in not recognizing that expert opinion is a relevant and corroborative piece of evidence, would cause no prejudice to the complainant, and is essential to do substantial justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, in Negotiable Instrument Act Case No. 571/2016 and may kindly be pleased to allow the application for examination of signature and endorsement in the cheque by hand writing expert filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 4 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is legal, proper, and calls for no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. This is second round of litigation. On 21.01.2025, in the first round of litigation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the order in CrMP No.1669/2024 as under : “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with liberty to move an application after adducing some evidence. 2. Permission is granted. 3. Considering the fact that this case is still pending since 2016 and more than eight years have already lapsed, it is directed that the trial Court will make an endeavour to conclude the trial within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant CRMP is disposed of.” 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has adduced her evidence and examined herself as PW – 1 on 09.06.2025 and challenged her signature put on cheque in question. It is also pertinent to mention here that in similar matter in CrMP No.823/2019 passed by this Court on 03.05.2019 and allowed the 5 application of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has questioned her signature on the questioned cheque, it would be expedient to get the signature examined by handwriting expert. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to get her signature on the questioned cheque examined by handwriting expert and produce the report before the trial court in accordance with law within a period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. It is directed to the petitioner that she shall file expert report till 31.01.2026 and thereafter the trial Court shall consider and decide the case after examination of handwriting expert within a period of ‘two months’ from the date of filing of expert report. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant