13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.667 OF 2026 PETITIONER :- Mrs. Rajkumari D/o Shyamsunder Rajput, aged about 36 years, occupation service, Resident of H. No.143, Indira Society, Shyam Nagar, Punapur Road, Nagpur. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) Sachin S/o Devidas Bakre, aged about 48 years, occupation business, Resident of Plot No.10, Sharda Nagar, Punapur Road, Near Bhavani Hospital, Pardi, Nagpur.440035. 2) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Pardi, Nagpur 440035. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Anil S. Gupta, a/w Mr. S.A. Sahu, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P.N. Upadhyay, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 23 /09/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the order below Exh.81 2026:BHC-NAG:12920 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 2 dated 12.08.2026 passed by the learned 19th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur, whereby the application Exh.81 filed by the applicant for referring the stamp paper to a handwriting expert came to be rejected. 4. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application came to be rejected by the learned trial Court, on perverse finding that the application is filed with an intention to protract the trial belatedly after completion of the evidence of both the complainant as well as the accused. It is further submitted by the applicant that the applicant’s valuable right of taking all the defences available to him in the prosecution launched by the complainant, stands defeated in view of the impugned order rejecting the application for examining the signature through the handwriting expert. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) versus M.S. Sampoornam(Mrs.), reported in 2007 (2) SCC 258, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is essential that the rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed and the 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 3 Courts should be zealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. He further submits that the applicant could not be convicted without a fair opportunity given to him to present his evidence and if the same is denied to him, the same would amount to an unfair trial. He further submits that the applicant is ready to compensate the complainant by paying appropriate costs. The delay was also caused on the part of the complainant in filing the Exh.32 on record as the same was not filed along with the complaint which was filed in the year 2022. 5. Mr. Gupta further submits that the aforesaid document were filed on 16.05.2024 whereas the complaint was filed on 18.08.2022. Some of the delay in asking for the said document to be referred to the handwriting expert is also attributable to the complainant who has filed the said document Exh.32 belatedly. The applicant has taken a specific defence in his cross-examination by the complainant that the signature appearing on Exh.32 i.e. the stamp paper, does not belong to the accused and that the blank stamp paper on which the applicant has signed, was not produced by the complainant along with the documents annexed to the complaint. Thus, the 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 4 observations by the learned trial Court that the applicant has only stated that the Exh.32 was not executed by her is incorrect, in fact, Exh.32 is a document which was never signed by the applicant and is placed by the complainant. Hence, the same needs to be referred to the handwriting expert so as to avail a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself. The impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside, the document Exh.32 may be directed to be referred to the handwriting expert and after receipt of the same, the trial Court shall be directed to adjudicate the complaint case filed by the complainant. 6. As against this, Mr. Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant strongly opposes the present petition on the ground that the application Exh.81 was filed by the petitioner only with an intention to protract the trial. The documents were filed as back as in the year 2024, however, the application was filed after completion of the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused has also examined one of the defence witnesses to substantiate his defence. Mr. Upadyay further submits that one of the witnesses have specifically deposed that the applicant accused has executed Exh.32 in his presence. The application belatedly filed 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 5 was rightly rejected by the learned trial court. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the stages of the trial wherein the applicant accused was found to have ample opportunity for making such a request early in the trial during the pendency of the trial. However, when the trial is at the fag end, such a request is made only with an intention to delay the trial. The application was therefore rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. The impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained and the petition may be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed below Exh.81. I have also gone through Exh.81 filed by the petitioner and the list of documents submitted along with the complaint dated 18.08.2022. The perusal of the complaint and the list of documents shows that the Exh.32 was not filed while the complaint was filed by the complainant on 18.08.2022. Exh.32 is filed only on 16.05.2024. The petitioner has specifically averred in the cross-examination in paragraph 8 of his deposition that the blank paper signed by him is not produced by the complainant and some other document Exh.32 which is not signed by him is placed and relied upon by the complainant to establish the legally enforceable debt. The petitioner appears to have made the request 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 6 to refer the signature appearing on Exh.32 to the handwriting expert so as to take a plausible defence to rebut the claims made by the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar (supra) was pleased to observe as under :- “12. Section 243 (2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. “fair trial” includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the learned Judge of the High Court that the petitioner has filed application under Section 243 Cr.P.C. without naming any person as witness or anything to be summoned, which are to be sent for handwriting expert for examination. As noticed above, Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. refers to a stage when the prosecution closes its evidence after examining the witnesses and the accused has entered upon his defence. The appellant in this case requests for sending the cheque, in question, for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent has closed her evidence, the Magistrate should have granted such a request unless he thinks that the object of the appellant is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings. In the circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal upholding the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and not sustainable.” 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 7 8. Thus, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the accused shall be granted every opportunity to prove his innocence. However, there appears to be some delay in filing of such application. Hence, I pass the following order :- ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order below Exh.81 dated 12.08.2026 passed by the learned 19th Joint Civil Jude Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The petitioner shall deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- before the learned trial Court. The aforesaid cost if deposited shall be paid to the complainant. iv) The document Exh.32 shall be referred to the handwriting expert along with the specimen signature and the original signature of the accused/applicant available on record and additionally supplied, if any, supplied by the petitioner. v) The handwriting expert i.e. CID Nagpur, is directed to submit the report expeditiously and not beyond a period of three months. 13.wp.667.2026 Judgment.odt 8 ii) After receipt of the handwriting expert’s report, the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and not beyond a period of eight months from today. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/09/2026 10:14:00