The admission of the respondent's signature on the cheques made the appointment of a handwriting expert unnecessary.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of order dated 11.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge Electricity Act), Indore in CRR No. 123/2019 whereby the order dated 23.01.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.28538/2015 passed by JMFC, Indore has been affirmed the order of the learned trial Court allowing the application under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C., hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner advanced a long to the respondent to the tune of Rs.15lacs and through cheque bearing no.772239 dated 30.04.2012. As per the agreement, the respondent also agreed to pay interest of Rs.5,40,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, a partial payment was made to the petitioner for discharge of liability and cheque no.500003 dated 25.05.2015 for Rs.17,77,000/- was issued by the respondent and on being presented, the same was dishonored. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent and filed a case under the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, at the stage of defense of respondent, he filed an application under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C. intending to examine handwriting expert in the matter to verify the handwriting on the cheque and to the said application, the petitioner has filed his reply by submitting that the respondent has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and therefore, under Section 20 of the N.I. Act, it is immaterial that who has written or fill up the cheque. The learned trial Court without considering the material and prescribed law, allowed the application vide order dated 23.01.2019 and on revision, the learned revisional Court has also affirmed the order of the learned JMFC vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in law and facts in allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 254 (2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Courts below have erred in law in holding that respondent ought to have been granted opportunity of examination the hand writing expert. it is also submitted that in the present case, the respondent has admitted the fact of issuance of cheque and and his signature on the cheque, hence, appointment of handwriting expert is not at all required. It is also submitted that under Section 20 of N.I. Act, the authority of filling up the cheque has been given to the receiver of the cheque and hence, in such situation, the learned Courts below have erred in allowing the application of the respondent. In application preferred under Section 284(2) of Cr.P.C. no specific reason has been mentioned or and by handwriting report of the expert is necessary.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Sharafat Khan vs. the Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India 2016(1) MPWN 60 whereby the Court has observed that if the issuance of cheque and signature on the cheque is admitted, in such circumstances, there is no need to examine the writing thorough hand writing expert.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is crystal clear that signature of respondent/accused is admitted on cheques. It is defence of respondent that petitioner/complainant has filled up blank cheques. This cheque has been given as security. The provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:

"20. Inchoate stamped instruments.'Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in 1[India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amou