IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of expert evidence in resolving disputes regarding the authenticity of disputed documents, especially in cases involving negotiable instruments.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.6211 of 2021 challenging the orders dtd. 22/10/2019 passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1831 of 2019 in C.C.No.6211 of 2021, which was filed for sending the cheque in dispute to the hand writing expert.

2. The brief facts, as can be gathered from the record presented before the Court, are that respondent No.1/complainant has filed C.C.No.6211 of 2021 against the petitioner/accused under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act"). The contents of the said complaint would go to show that on 4/1/2017, the petitioner has approached respondent No.1 to invest an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs in the film production of a movie titled as Prema Katha Chitram-2 for which respondent No.1 promised to pay the said amount within four months and accordingly, paid an amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs on 4/1/2017 and also issued cheques for some more amounts in the month of January and February, 2017, in the presence of one A. Prabhakar Reddy, who is no other than the father of respondent No.1. In all respondent No.1 has paid an amount of Rs.28.00 lakhs. On persistent demand by respondent No.1, the petitioner has given cheque for Rs.4,80,000.00, which was honoured and subsequently, paid Rs.60,000.00 in four installments. Finally, the petitioner failed to pay an amount of Rs.22,60,000.00 to respondent No.1. On 1/8/2018, the petitioner has issued post dated cheque bearing No.309129, dtd. 8/8/2018 for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs in the name of RPA creations. When respondent No.1 presented the said cheque, the same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement "payment stopped by drawer".

3. Respondent No.1 got issued legal notice dtd. 19/11/2018, which was served on the petitioner on 22/11/2018, wherein she demanded the petitioner to pay the money covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and as there was no response, she filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Act. The trial Court has proceeded with the trial and after appearance of the petitioner, respondent No.1 was also examined as PW.1.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegations of respondent No.1 in respect of issuance of cheque etc., are false. The petitioner has not issued the cheque in the month of August, 2018. According to him, respondent No.1 has shown interest to finance for the movie and offered to invest an amount of Rs.2.00 crores and as a security, respondent No.1 has demanded him to issue blank signed cheque and accordingly, he has issued blank signed cheque to her. However, respondent No.1 failed to invest the money as promised. It is the further case of the petitioner/accused that the blank cheque given by him to respondent No.1 was manipulated, misused and materially altered by her and therefore, sending the said cheque to the hand writing expert is required and has filed Crl.M.P.No.1831 of 2019. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. Now, the point for determination is whether the cheque, which is marked as Ex.P1 in the trial Court in C.C.No.6211 of 2021 can be permitted to be sent to hand writing expert?

7. There is no dispute that respondent No.1 has filed C.C.No.6211 of 2021 against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Act, basing on a cheque for Rs.10.00 lakhs, which was returned dishonoured. It is also her case that the petitioner barrowed Rs.28.00 lakhs out of which he has issued cheque for Rs.10.00 lakhs under Ex.P1.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that he has given the cheque in dispute to respondent No.1 not as a security to the loan, which he has borrowed from her. He has issued only blank cheque signed by him to respondent No.1 as a security for Rs.2.00 crores, which she agreed to invest in