INDORE: dated 09/03/2018 Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the applicant.

None for the respondent.

The applicant/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 21/11/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biaora in Criminal Case No.302/2012 whereby his application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed cheque for examination by the handwriting expert has been rejected.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act alleging that the applicant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from him and toward discharge of the aforesaid debt, applicant issued a cheque. When the cheque was presented for realization, the said was dishonored.

The applicant has submitted an application under Section

45 of the Evidence Act before the Trial Court praying that the disputed cheque be sent for examination by the handwriting expert with regards to the figure which has been made are as “3,25,000/-” in place of “25,000/-” There is a different of handwriting and age of the “three”.

Trial Court after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 21/11/2017 has rejected the prayer. Being aggrieved by which, the applicant/accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the defence of the applicant before the Trial Court is that the applicant and respondent were business partners and were carrying out certain construction work together and for the purpose of making payments, a bank account was opened in the name of the applicant. The same was used to deposit and withdraw money from the bank account. For making hassle free transactions, applicant used to sign and write a sum of money on the cheque leaves and all other details were filled in by the person going to the bank for withdrawing money. During the currency of the partnership, respondent got hold of one cheque signed by the applicant and filled up with a figure of Rs.25,000/- It is the same cheque that has been used by the respondent after almost two years of the termination of business relations between the applicant and the respondent by forging numeric “three” before the numeric “twenty five thousand” and writing his own name and amount in words. Therefore, he submitted an application after completion of the complainant evidence praying therein to send the questioned document for handwriting expert. However, the said application has casually dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, he prayed that the order be quashed and prayer of the applicant be allowed.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent when the case was called for hearing.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, I have perused the record.

It is not disputed that the cheque has been signed by the applicant. However, he denied that he has handed over the questioned signed cheque to the respondent. He also disputed the amount which has been written in the numeric. The disputed cheque reveals that numeric “three” before the numeric “twenty five thousand” is inserted in different ink and writing. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is that he has signed the cheque of Rs.25,000/- only and by forgery, before 25,000/- numeric “3” has been added making the amount 3,25,000/-. It is also stated that the name of the holder of the cheque and amount in words is also not been filled by the applicant and further contended that the cheque in question was signed almost two years prior to the date which it has been presented for encashment and to prove the aforesaid facts, the applicant/accused has applied for examination of the cheque by some handwriting expert, who can opine as to whether the writing of signature as well the other writing over the cheque had been written on the different dates or on the same date having different is of writing.

Hon’ble Apex C