1 2026:CGHC:5689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3774 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Bharti S/o Shri Manharan Suryavanshi Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village- Goddih, Police Station, Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Subhash Ogre S/o Shri Ramkishun Ogre Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Post- Pamgarh Police Station, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 02/02/2026 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, in Revision Case No. 60/2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1006/2022, whereby the application filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence act, 1872 by the petitioner has been rejected. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.03 14:18:28 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case were that the complainant/respondent, Subhash Ogre, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, against the petitioner/accused Dinesh Bharti. During the trial, the accused filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting that the handwriting on the disputed cheque be examined by a handwriting expert. Vide order dated 02.09.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District – janjgir-Champa (C.G.) dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, holding that the accused had already admitted in his examination on 21.01.2025 that the cheque (Ex.P-1) and the signature on it were his, and therefore no dispute existed regarding execution of the cheque. 3. Subsequently, the order dated 02.09.2025, passed by learned JMFC, Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), dismissing the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been challenged by the petitioner herein, in Revision Case No. 60/2025 before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2025 by affirming the order of JMFC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque 3 in question was admittedly handed over by the petitioner only as a security instrument at the time of receiving a loan of merely Rs. 1,00,000/- and not towards any legally enforceable debt of Rs. 5,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that a security cheque, when misused or presented for an inflated and non-existent liability, does not attract the penal consequences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant has failed to establish any document, receipt, acknowledgment, or independent corroboration to prove that Rs. 5,00,000/- was ever advanced, thereby rendering the complaint inherently improbable and malicious. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner never disputed his signature on the cheque but consistently disputed the contents of the cheque, including the name of the payee, amount, and date, which were admittedly filled in later by the complainant. The petitioner’s request for handwriting expert examination was solely to establish manipulation of these material particulars. The mechanical rejection of the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, solely on the ground that the signature was admitted, is contrary to law. He further submits that the learned trial Court relied on Section 20 of the N.I. Act in an erroneous and hyper- 4 technical manner. Section 20 cannot be invoked to legitimise fraudulent filling of a blank cheque for an exaggerated amount, nor does it bar the defence from seeking forensic examination when allegations of tampering, misuse, and inflated liability are specifically raised. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from non- application of a judicious mind and result in serious miscarriage of justice. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the impugned order. 7. The trial Court and the revisional Court have found that the accused had already admitted in his examination on 21.01.2025 (Ex.P-9) in para-4 that the cheque and the signature on it were his, and therefore no dispute existed regarding execution of the cheque. The trial Court further observed, relying on Section 20 of the N.I. Act and the decisions in Sunita Dubey vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwar, reported in 2015(1) MPHT 94, T. Vimalanandan vs. Sanyarn Processors and K. Ramesh vs. Kothanandrman, 5 reported in 2024 Live Law SC 145, that when a cheque is signed and handed over, even if it is blank, the holder is legally authorised to fill in the remaining particulars, making it a valid negotiable instrument. Since only the contents and not the signature were disputed, the request for handwriting expert examination was unjustified, and thus the application was rejected. 8. Looking to the material available on record and also a detailed examination of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court does not reveal any illegality or irregularity in it, nor is the said order improper. The said impugned order of the revision Court is legal; there is no illegality, therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu Judge