IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42388 of 2024 NIRMALA KHATRI Versus TARANNUM JAHAN Appearance:

Shri Vipin Mishra, counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Ashi Soni and Shri Akshay Jha, counsel for respondent.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/accused challenging the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned XXIVth Add. Session Judge, Jabalpur in Cr. Rev no. 264/24, arising out of the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in SCNIA No. 291/2020, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed cheque for handwriting expert opinion has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-. The applicant denied issuance of the cheque and claimed that the signature appearing on the cheque is forged.

3. During trial, the applicant initially filed an application under Section

45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed cheque for handwriting expert opinion. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2023. The applicant preferred a criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court with liberty to raise the said issue at the stage of defence evidence.

4. Thereafter, at the stage of defence evidence, the applicant again filed a second application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act on the same grounds. The Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 20.05.2024 holding that no new circumstance had arisen and that the application was only a repetition of the earlier one. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 05.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the rejection of the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has deprived the applicant of an opportunity to prove her defence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and submitted that the application was rightly rejected as it was filed to delay the proceedings.

7. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the record.

8. The trial court record also shows that during the cross-examination of the complainant, counsel for the accused did not suggest that the cheque in question was lost, stolen, or otherwise came into the complainant’s possession unlawfully. In this regard, the petitioner/accused has not produced any document to show that he initiated any legal action against the complainant regarding the alleged illegal use of his cheque. The petitioner also admitted, during the cross- examination of the complainant in paragraph 11, that he had issued the questioned cheque when the complainant lent him the amount. The Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application. It is settled law that the opinion of handwriting expert is only a corroborative piece of evidence and the accused is not entitled to seek such opinion as a matter of right. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to interfere with well-reasoned interlocutory orders passed by the courts below. 9. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference.

10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(B. P. SHARMA)

JUDGE SM