IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 32 of 2026 Bharat Ku Sahu @ Bharat Sahoo ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Samarendra Bahadur, Adv. -Versus- Sk. Riazat ……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Deepak Ku. Sahoo, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 02.02.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., (LR & LTV), Kendrapara in 1CC Case No.88 of 2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had filed a petition before the learned J.M.F.C., (LR & LTV), Kendrapara to send the cheque to handwriting expert/forensic laboratory to verify that the scriber of the cheque and the deposit slip are the same and to determine the age of the ink. However, the learned Magistrate has rejected the same on the ground that the Petitioner had ample Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Feb-2026 17:24:56 Signature Not Verified 2 opportunity to prove the signature as well as the details appearing on the cheque which was not his own handwriting during the stage of defence evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that being aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2025, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar1 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “9. The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The very fact that by reason thereof, only a prima facie right had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable instrument and the same being subject to the conditions as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant was bona fide. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) [(2007) 2 SCC 258] (in which one of us, L.S. Panta, J., was a member) wherein it was held : "12. Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under CrPC 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 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 1 (2008) 5 SCC 633 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Feb-2026 17:24:56 Signature Not Verified 3 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 the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. 10. However, it is not necessary to have any expert opinion on the question other than the following : "Whether the writings appearing in the said cheque on the front page is written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed as "T.Nagappa" on the front page as well as on the reverse, or in other words, whether the age of the writing on Ex.P2 on the front page is the same as that of the signature "T.Nagappa" appearing on the front as well as on the reverse of the Cheque Ex.P2?" 11. Ms. Suri, however, pointed out that the application of the appellant being one under Section 293 of the Code of criminal Procedure was rightly rejected. It is now a well settled principle of law that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly with the aforementioned directions. Appeal is allowed.” 7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has objected to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner had filed the said petition with an intention to delay the trial. He further submits that the Petitioner has neither taken the plea of disputing the authenticity of the handwriting on the cheque when he gave his reply to the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Feb-2026 17:24:56 Signature Not Verified 4 Advocate notice nor did his appearance in the court during the time of charge or after receiving the copy of evidence. 8. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C (LR & LTV), Kendrapara in 1CC No.88 of 2024. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.