IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5283 of 2025 Nrusingh@nrusingha Swain ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv.

- Deepak Ku Sahoo -versus-

State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented by Adv. – Miss B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

16.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused in 1CC Case No.326 of 2022 thereby seeking to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(LR&LTV), Kendrapara.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially 1CC Case No.326 of 2022 was filed at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-Complainant alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He further submitted that during examination of the complainant as P.W.1, the accused-Petitioner moved an application with a prayer to send the cheque to the handwriting expert as the Petitioner disputed the signature on the cheque. Such petition having been been rejected by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. On perusal of the record it appears that in course of trial while the P.W.1 was being cross- examined, the accused was represented by his lawyer under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C.

5. In course of trial the case was posted to 23.09.2025 for filing of objection to the petition dated 22.09.2025. On further perusal of record it appears that on 22.09.2025 the Petitioner filed an application under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to defer the cross-examination of P.W.1. It also appears from order dated 22.09.2025 that earlier a petition had also been filed at the instance of the accused-Petitioner with a prayer to send the cheque to the handwriting expert.

6. On further perusal of order dated 23.09.2025 passed in the above noted 1CC case it appears that the case was posted to that date for filing of the objection petition. Learned counsel for the complainant filed his objection to the petition dated 22.09.2025. The petition filed to send the cheque to handwriting expert was also taken up for hearing on that day. It was argued on behalf of the defence that the signature on the cheque is a forged one and that a cheque was never signed by the accused-Petitioner. Such contention of the accused-Petitioner was countered by the counsel for the complainant by stating that the petition has been filed with an intention to delay the trial. It was also brought to the notice to the learned trial Court that the accused had not taken such a plea thereby disputing the authenticity of the signature at the first instance. It was also contended that the accused-Petitioner will get ample opportunity to prove his case during trial. Accordingly, the prayer for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert was objected to by the complainant.

7. After hearing learned counsels appearing for both sides, the learned trial Court after taking note of the provision contained in Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujaran, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 77 concluded that the accused-Petitioner has not submitted any specimen signature before the Court to compare the same with the signature which appears on the cheque. As such in the absence of any specimen signature which is admitted by the accused as his own signature, the Court was not in a position to send the cheque to the handwriting expert. While rejecting the prayer of the accused-Petitioner, the learned trial Court has also taken note of the legal position that the presumption under the N.I. Act with regard