Heard Sri K.S.Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel

for

the

respondent.

Perused

the

records

on

admission.

2.

The present petition is filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-

"To set aside the order dated 09.03.2023

in C.C.No.751/2022 pending on the file of

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hangal (vide

Annexure-A) thereby allowing the IA filed by

the petitioner/accused under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.”

3.

Though the matter is listed for admission

by consent of the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

4.

Accused-petitioner

is

facing

criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.751/2022 for the offence

punishable

U/sec.138

of

the

Negotiable

Instruments Act (for short, 'N.I. Act'). The trial

has commenced and after the cross-examination of

- 3 -

the complainant, accused has filed an application

U/sec.91

Cr.P.C.

seeking

summoning

of

the

handwriting of the daughter of the complainant

from the school Headmaster where daughter of the

complainant studied by contending that the blank

columns in the cheque is filled up by the daughter

of the complainant. It is also the case of the

accused that the complainant stole the signed

cheque which was in the custody of the accused

and misused the same.

5.

The said application was contested by the

complainant and learned trial Magistrate rejected

the same. The said order is under challenge before

this Court.

6.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the

petition, Sri K.S.Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner

vehemently

contended

that

the

petitioner has made out a strong case for allowing

the application U/sec.91 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the

- 4 -

blank columns are not in the handwriting of the

accused and it is his specific case that it is in the

handwriting of the daughter of the complainant

and therefore, it amounts to material alteration of

a negotiable instrument vitiating the very validity

of

the

negotiable

instrument

and

sought

for

allowing the petition.

7.

Per contra, Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned

counsel for the respondent opposes the petition

grounds and sought for dismissal of the petition in

view

of

the

presumption

available

to

the

complainant U/sec.139 of the N.I. Act.

8.

In view of the rival contentions of the

parties, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

9.

On such

perusal

of the

material on

record, it is

seen

that

there is no criminal

complaint or legal notice issued by the accused

even after entering the appearance before the

- 5 -

learned trial Magistrate as to the alleged stealing

away of the cheque by the complainant.

10.

It is only as an afterthought, the accused

has taken up the contention that the cheque was

stolen by the complainant.

11.

It is now settled principles of law and

requires no emphasis that a blank cheque filled up

by the holder in due course either by himself or

through any of his agents would not vitiate the

validity of the cheque and it would not amount to

material alteration.

12.

Under

such

circumstances,

filing

of

application

U/sec.91

Cr.P.C.

has

been

rightly

rejected

by

the

learned

trial

Magistrate.

Accordingly, no miscarriage of justice has taken

place

calling

for

interference

by

this

Court

U/sec.482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is

passed.

- 6 -

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

All other contentions of the accused

are kept open to be urged before the

Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49