Delhi High Court
Shubhwati vs Alka Rastogi on 18 July, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:18th July, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 4720/2025, CRL.M.A. 20458/2025
SHUBHWATI
W/o Sh. Satya Pal Goswami
R/o 4/4, Flat D2, Sector 5,
Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
.....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
ALKA RASTOGI
W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar
R/o House No.941, Top Floor,
HIG Category, Vikas Kunj,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.
.....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) and 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) read with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:21.07.2025 CRL.M.C. 4720/2025 Page 1 of 6
18:05:34
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the
Petitioner for setting aside of the Order dated 19.05.2025 vide which the
learned ASJ in Criminal Revision has upheld the Order of the learned JMFC
dated 21.09.2024, whereby the Application of the Petitioner for examination
of Handwriting by the Expert has been dismissed in a Complaint Case under
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as
“NI Act“).
2. Briefly stated, the Complainant/Respondent had filed a Complaint
under Section 138 NI Act. At the stage of Defence Evidence, the
Petitioner/Accused moved an Application under Section 243 Cr.P.C. praying
for appointment of Handwriting Expert on the ground that she had never
signed the impugned cheque. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the
Application vide Order dated 21.09.2024 and closed the opportunity of the
Accused/Petitioner to adduce evidence.
3. Aggrieved the Revision Petition was filed before the learned ASJ,
who also upheld the Order of learned JMFC on 19.05.2025.
4. Hence, the present Petition has been filed to seek the impugned
cheque be examined by an Handwriting Expert.
5. The grounds of challenge are that the Complainant had already
admitted in her evidence before the learned Trial Court that there was no
transaction with the Accused, which means that there is no legally
recoverable debt against the Petitioner/Accused.
6. The learned Trial Court has erroneously relied upon the judgment of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:21.07.2025 CRL.M.C. 4720/2025 Page 2 of 6
18:05:34
Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat, (2024) 4 SCC 453, which is in
fact is not applicable on the facts of this case. No opportunity had been
given to the Petitioner for rebuttal that the signatures on the cheque were not
her signatures.
7. Reliance has also been placed on Amarnath & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185, wherein the Apex Court held that
“Interlocutory Order” in Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. has been used in a
restricted sense and includes Orders of purely interim or temporary nature
which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties.
Any Order which touches the rights or decides the rights of the parties
cannot be termed as interlocutory. The learned ASJ wrongly observed that
the Order under Section 243 Cr.P.C. for appointment of Handwriting Expert
is purely an interlocutory Order. Infact, no right of accused pertaining to
trial has been decided therein as the Revision Petition under Section 397 (2)
was held to be not maintainable.
8. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though
should be sparingly used, but when the Court comes to the conclusion that
there is manifest injustice and abuse of process of the Courts, such power
must be exercised as observed in the case of State of Maharashtra through
CBI vs. Vikram Anatrai Doshi Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2014 and Inder
Singh Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 (12) SCC 1.
9. The case was at the stage of defence evidence; a fair opportunity of
rebuttal has been denied to the Petitioner which was necessary to prove his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:21.07.2025 CRL.M.C. 4720/2025 Page 3 of 6
18:05:34
defence.
10. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order be set aside and an
opportunity be given to the Petitioner to examine the Handwriting Expert in
her defence.
11. Submissions heard and record perused.
12. The learned JMFC in the detailed impugned Order, has observed that
the issuance of cheque in question by the Accused/Petitioner to the
Complainant has been disputed, though her version regarding whether it
bears her signatures or not, is inconsistent. At the time of framing of Notice
under Section 251 Cr.P.C., she denied that the signatures on the cheque
belonged to her but in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while she
initially stated that the cheque in question bears her signatures, but
immediately thereafter retracted and the Court’s observation in regard to the
same, was recorded.
13. Furthermore, it was rightly contended on behalf of the Respondent
that the reason for dishonour of cheque as per the Return Memo was “Funds
Insufficient” and not “Drawer’s Signatures Differ”. Had the cheque been
dishonoured for “signatures not matching”, then may be the Petitioner was
justified in seeking the examination of the disputed cheque through a
Handwriting Expert. However, in the present circumstances there is no
justification for allowing the Handwriting to be examined to prove the
signatures.
14. Furthermore, the Petitioner has already examined herself as DW1. It
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:21.07.2025 CRL.M.C. 4720/2025 Page 4 of 6
18:05:34
is only at this stage after her evidence was recorded, that she moved an
Application for examination of handwriting on the cheque, by Handwriting
Expert. Since it was her defence since beginning, that the cheque does not
bear her signatures, nothing prevented her from moving such Application for
examination of disputed cheque through a Handwriting Expert or else to
have herself produced a Handwriting Expert to depose about the
genuineness of the signatures on the cheque in question.
15. In this regard reference to the observations of the Apex Court in the
case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod (Supra) has been rightly placed. The Apex
Court had observed that if the Appellant was desirous of proving the
signatures on the cheque were not genuine, then the certified copy of the
specimen signatures from the bank could have been procured and the bank
officials could have been summoned and examined as defence witness for
proving/disproving the genuineness of signatures on the cheque. It was
alternatively observed that the presumption under NI Act albeit rebuttable,
operates in favour of the Complainant. It is for the Accused to rebut such
presumption by leading appropriate defence evidence and the Court cannot
be expected to assist the Accused to collect the evidence on his behalf.
16. Therefore, to seek the cheque to be sent to a Handwriting Expert in
these circumstances, is completely unwarranted. Since the matter is still at
the stage of Defence Evidence and if Defence evidence has not been closed,
the Petitioner is at liberty to adduce any evidence in support of her defence.
17. The Application has been rightly dismissed by the learned JMFC by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:21.07.2025 CRL.M.C. 4720/2025 Page 5 of 6
18:05:34
observing it to be not only belated, but also being without merit. There is no
infirmity in the impugned Order and the present Petition is hereby,
dismissed.
18. The Petition stands disposed of along with the pending Application(s).
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 18, 2025
va
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:21.07.2025 CRL.M.C. 4720/2025 Page 6 of 6
18:05:34
[ad_1]
Source link