S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seek to challenge an order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner for sending the dishonoured cheques, in respect of which the complaint cases were filed against the Petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for its opinion on the handwriting on the cheques.

2. The cheques in question are Nos. 836720, 445534 and 752076 all dated 1st May, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each in respect of which Complaint Case No. 339 of 2004 was filed, Nos. 328114 dated 11th May, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and No. 520660 dated 11th May, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in respect of which Complaint Case No. 340 of 2004 was filed, and Nos. 752064 and 555267 both dated 7th May, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each in respect of which Complaint Case No. 341 of 2004 was filed. The aggregate sum of all these cheques is Rs. 8 lakhs. The case of the complainant is that on different dates from 2000 to 2003 the Petitioner accused took a loan of Rs. 8 lakhs and issued the aforementioned cheques towards his liability for repayment of the loans. All the cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank (PNB), Tolstoy House, New Delhi. Some of the cheques when presented returned dishonoured with the remarks "account closed" and some others on the ground "funds insufficient". Despite the complainant sending notices demanding payment, the Petitioner did not make payment within the statutory period.

3. At the trial after the complainants evidence was recorded the petitioner examined himself as a defense witness and filed an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The stand taken in his affidavit was that the Petitioner was working as an officer in PNB. He was introduced to the complainant in the year 1997 by the brother-in-law of the complainant who was a colleague of the Petitioner at PNB. It is stated that Petitioners brother Mr. Rajesh Chopra was in a real estate business at that point in time. The complainant, on coming to know this, expressed his desire to invest money in the real estate business. thereforee the petitioner introduced the complainant to his brother Mr.Rajesh Chopra. It is stated that during the period 1997-98 the complainant invested the aforementioned sum in the real estate business of his brother and it was agreed that the invested money would be repaid shortly. The complainant then insisted upon the Petitioner here standing surety for his brother. It is stated that pursuant to this request, the Petitioner issued the aforementioned cheques from his staff account at the PNB leaving blanks in the material particulars i.e. "without filling name, date and crossing". It is also the case of the Petitioner here that "the complainant also obtained 3 letters from the deponent having the dates left blank for receiving the said amount of these loans and cheques were issued on the assurance that the cheques and loans would be returned once the amount is paid to the complainant." It is claimed by the Petitioner that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was repaid in the last week of October 2000 to the complainant and when he was asked to return the cheques and letters he was assured that it would be sent to the Petitioner in due course and that the Petitioner trusted him to do so. A further sum of Rs. 1 lakh was repaid in January 2001 after the Petitioner took a voluntary retirement from PNB in December 2000. It is stated that despite several efforts the Petitioner was unable to get the complainant to return the blank cheques.

4. It is claimed by the petitioner that the complainant had filed the aforementioned three complaints after filling the name of the payee, the date and crossing the cheques. It is alleged that the complainant also filled the date of the cheques in the letters with m