Once the signatures on a cheque are admitted, the handwriting on the cheque itself would not be a sufficient ground to rule against the cheque having been issued in due course.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj. J. - The present petition raises a challenge to the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sohna, Gurugram in case No. NIA/14/2017 titled as 'Padam Singh versus Sudhir Kumar' filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as also the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner on an application for seeking permission to engage the Hand Writing Expert.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the said orders passed by the Courts below whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment of a Hand-Writing Expert to obtain expert opinion about writing on the cheque in question was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel has argued that the respondent-complainant had based his complaint alleging therein that the petitioner had issued the cheque in question on 24.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in discharge of his liability. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had never issued the said cheque nor there was any liability to be discharged by him. It is argued that the husband of the petitioner and the respondent were doing business together and it was at the said relevant period of time that the petitioner gave the cheque to the respondent as a security for their mutual transactions and business of property dealing. It is contended that the cheque in question was not signed by the petitioner and had been handed-over as a blank cheque. There was no legally enforceable debt.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the pleadings of the case and the documents appended therewith.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sohna, District Gurugram shows that the following reasons have been recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sohna for dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner.

'4. File perused. Present application is filed at the stage of evidence of defence evidence being last opportunity. In the present application, applicant has claimed that there are difference in writing. But there are no such specific denial of accused regarding his signature over cheque in question. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which it is claimed by accused that he has issued cheque in question for security purpose and now no debt is pending qua accused. When signature over cheque in question has not specifically denied then there is no question for appointment of handwriting expert to compare the handwriting over cheque in question. In M/s Sebro Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) our Hon'ble High Court has held that:

'dishonour of cheque-Handwriting expert- petitioner admitted signature but disputed the handwriting and ink used on blank cheque given- application for examination of handwriting expert and for the report of FSL to be rightly dismissed.'

In view of finding of our Hon'ble High Court it is clear that when accused has admitted his signatures over cheque in question then there is no ground for taking the report of handwriting expert regarding handwriting over disputed cheque. Hence, there is no ground in the application and same is hereby dismissed.'

6. Further, the arguments of the petitioner were also noticed by the Lower Appellate Court and upon consideration thereof, it was decided as under:-

'11. After hearing the arguments and after perusing the case file, ultimately this court has arrived at the conclusion that application in hand deserves dismissal. In the present case, it is the case of the revisionist that he had been throughout denying his signatures on Cheque Ex.C1 having not been issued by him.

12. Admittedly, no defence evidence has been led in the present case despite the fact that accused has already availed twelve effective opportunities for leading evidence in defence but accused ha