IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3657 of 2025

Ramai Melgandi @ Ramai Hoe @ Ramay Ho, aged about 39 years, S/o Nandu Hoe @ Nandu Ho, Resident of Village –Nandup, P.O. Sundarnagar, P.S. –Sundarnagar, Town –Jamshedpur, District –East

Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

.... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive (POCSO) Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 1629 of 2025 arising out of Special POCSO Case No. 50 of 2022 corresponding to Sundernagar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Special Judge rejected the petition dated 02.08.2025 filed by the petitioner for appointment of the handwriting expert for its opinion as to the genuineness of the signature of the prosecutrix made on the F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext –P1 (P.W.3). The handwriting expert was expected

to submit its opinion, after comparison of the signature made by the prosecutrix on her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which was marked Ext.-P2 during the trial.

3. The brief fact of the case is that it is the defence of the petitioner who is the accused person of the said case that a lady constable namely Sushma Toppo has signed the F.I.R. of the case by impersonating as the victim and on the basis of the forged signature, the F.I.R. has been instituted; so the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated. The undisputed fact remains that after the petitioner examined two witnesses in his defence, the petitioner filed an application dated 02.08.2025 before the trial court to pass orders for appointing a handwriting expert, to report as to the genuineness of the signature of the informant on the F.I.R. by comparing the said signature with the signature of the informant appearing on the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge considered that F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and apparently keeping in mind that whether or not the signature of the informant appears on the F.I.R. cannot be a determining factor in establishing the guilt of the petitioner-accused person of the case, rejected the same.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hussain Bin Awaz Vs. Mittapally Venkataramulu & Ors. dated 04.11.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13354 of 2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in a suit for declaration and injunction, since the plaintiff has to prove its case, Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked for an admitted document, for the purpose of comparison of signatures or handwriting. It is next submitted that thus the petitioner was well within his right to obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert as to the genuineness or otherwise of the signature of the informant appearing in the First Information Report. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Special Judge, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by rejecting the said prayer. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that it is a settled principle of law that the evidence of a handwriting expert is not a substantive piece of evidence. The same is opinion evidence and very weak in character. The testimony of the handwriting expert is not binding upon th