The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Gurugram in Complaint No.3998 of 2017 dated 18.03.2017 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 titled as Vijay Taneja v. Naresh Gureja , whereby an application moved by the petitioner/complainant for sending the cheque in question for examination to the FSL Madhuban for comparison of the signatures of the accused has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a Criminal Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As per the case of the petitioner, as a discharge of his legally enforceable debt, the respondent/accused had handed over a cheque of his firm M/s V.K. Casting bearing Cheque No.921238 dated 28.12.2016 drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Old Railway Road, Gurugram for Rs.3,00,000/- which upon presentation was dishonoured. Pursuant to the issuance of the statutory notice, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed after which the respondent/accused came to be summoned to face trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the JMIC, Gurugram. A copy of the complaint is attached as Annexure P-3 to the petition.

3. Subsequent thereto, an application was moved by the respondent/accused for cross-examination of the complainant under section 145(2) of the N.I. Act which application was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2018. After the completion of the cross-examination of the complainant on 24.09.2019, an application was moved by the respondent/accused for examining the handwriting and fingerprint expert in defence by stating that since the cheque was returned for the reason 'Payment Stopped' the signatures on the cheque was not compared with the specimen signatures by the bank officials and as such, the examination of the handwriting and fingerprint expert was required for comparison of the signatures of the respondent/accused on the cheques as the same had been misused and forged.

4. An application for examination of the handwriting and fingerprint expert was allowed by the JMIC, vide order dated 11.01.2022. It was observed that the respondent/accused had taken a consistent stand that the cheque did not bear his signatures and therefore, it was expedient if an expert was examined so as to enable the Court to reach on a conclusion as to the true facts. A copy of the said order dated 11.01.2022 is attached as Annexure P-5 to the petition.

5. The aforementioned order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide CRM-M-18313-2022. The said petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.05.2022 with the liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the Trial Court seeking an examination of the cheque in question by a Government appointed expert/FSL laboratory.

6. In pursuance to the aforementioned, liberty granted, an application was moved for sending the cheque in question to the FSL to verify the genuineness of the signatures. A copy of the said application is attached as Annexure P-6 to the petition.

A response was filed to the application by the respondent/accused pleading that the said application had been moved just to delay the conclusion of the trial.

7. Based on the respective contentions of both the parties, the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) came to be passed wherein the Court held that there was no necessity to send the cheque in question to the FSL to verify the signatures of the accused on the cheque since from the very inception the accused had taken a defence that the cheque did not b