IMPORTANT POINT
An accused has the right to present evidence to challenge the validity of a cheque, particularly when allegations of misuse are made.

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the JMIC, Bathinda in Criminal Complaint i.e. COMA No.2587 dated 25.07.2017 titled “Kulwant Kaur Vs. Jagjeet Singh” whereby applications moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. have been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant (hereinafter known as the respondent) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused (hereinafter known as the petitioner) that with a view to discharge his legal liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque No.018848 dated 19.05.2017 for an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- which had been dishonoured leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act and the consequential summoning order.

3. During the course of the Trial and at the stage of recording defence evidence, the petitioner moved his first application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to examine Shri H.S Mander, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, Barnala in order to elucidate the defence/qua the fabrication of the cheque by Sandeep Singh son of Ajmer Singh, Attorney of the complainant-Kulwant Kaur. The copy of the said application is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.

4. A second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for calling upon Sandeep Singh son of Ajmer Singh, Attorney of complainant Kulwant Kaur to give his specimen handwriting for comparison with the writing on the body of the cheque Ex.C1. The copy of the said application is attached as Annexure P-3 to the petition.

5. A reply was filed to the applications by the respondent. The copy of the said reply is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

6. Based on the pleadings of both the parties the applications came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.02.2021.

7. The aforementioned order is under challenge in the present petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to his first application contends that on account of inadvertence, the expert witness could not be examined with respect to the fabrication of the cheque by Sandeep Singh son of Ajmer Singh and the Attorney and son of the complainant-Kulwant Kaur. The examination of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert was material and necessary for the just adjudication of the case and the complainant would not suffer any prejudice as she would have the right to cross-examine the said witnesses.

As regards the second application calling for Sandeep Singh to give his specimen writing for comparison with the writing in the body of the cheque Ex.C1, he contends that it was the consistent case of the petitioner that the cheque-book in question had been lost as was evident from DDR dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-9). Sandeep Singh was examined as CW1 and in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was working as a Munshi at the brick kiln of Jagjeet Singh (petitioner). Suggestions had been put to him that he had seen the petitioner signing the cheques and that he had got signatures of the petitioner on various documents being a Munshi and some of them including the cheque in question had been misused by him and his mother Kulwant Kaur. Once the case of the defence was that there was a misuse of the cheque in question which might have been filled in by Sandeep Singh who was admittedly working as a Munshi with the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have allowed the application calling upon Sandeep Singh to give his specimen writing for comparison with the writing in the body of the cheque. He, therefore contends that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the prayers of the petitioner as set out in the applications be allowed.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the only purpose of the petitioner who had moved these applications was to delay proceedings. The trial had proceeded to the stage