SAROJ KUMAR Vs. HARMINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, dtd. 24/1/2023, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 45 read with Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for seeking the expert opinion of Handwriting Expert by comparing the signatures of the applicant with the disputed signatures was dismissed.

(2.) It has been asserted that the respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the year 2016. The petitioner/accused disputed her signatures on the cheque in the cross-examination of the respondent/complainant. The petitioner had lost the chequebook in May, 2017. She informed the Bank on 16/5/2017. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 45 read with Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence for comparing the signatures on the cheque with the signatures on Power of Attorney and the specimen signatures. The application was dismissed by the Court on 24/1/2023 on the ground that the cheque was not dishonoured on the ground that the drawer's signatures differ. It is asserted that the learned Court below misconstrued the provision of law. There was no evidence that the petitioner had signed the cheque. The application could not have been dismissed on the ground that the cheque was not dishonoured on the ground that the drawer's signature differs. The opinion of the expert was necessary to establish the defence. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.L. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.