Different handwriting on cheque particulars alone does not require expert examination.

The respondent filed three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning three cheques issued in connection with an alleged liability arising from the parties’ business dealings.

The applicant admitted her signatures on the cheques but claimed that she had handed them over signed and blank, and that another person later filled in the particulars without her knowledge or consent.

She sought examination of the cheque writings by a handwriting expert under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The Trial Courts rejected the applications, and the revisional court dismissed the applicant’s challenges.

The applicant then brought these applications under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether refusal to obtain handwriting-expert examination of the cheque particulars, despite the applicant admitting her signatures, denied her a fair opportunity to present her defence.

2. Whether the Trial Courts’ and revisional court’s orders rejecting that examination request warranted interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits expert opinion on matters including handwriting.

Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 create rebuttable presumptions in favour of the holder of a cheque.

Under Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, a signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over is not invalid merely because someone other than the drawer later filled in its particulars; the statutory presumption remains subject to rebuttal.

In K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman, (2024) 12 SCC 82, the Supreme Court held, in the circumstances of that case, that forensic examination of cheque writings was unnecessary where the signature was undisputed.

An accused’s right to a fair opportunity does not require permission for every proposed mode of evidence; the court must assess its necessity and whether refusal causes actual prejudice.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits inherent-jurisdiction interference where the impugned orders disclose manifest illegality, perversity, or failure of justice.

The applicant’s admitted signatures and her claim that the remaining particulars were filled in later did not, by themselves, make expert examination necessary.

Under Bir Singh and K. Ramesh, a difference between the handwriting of the particulars and the drawer’s signature does not invalidate the cheque or displace the statutory presumption without more.

The Court also noted that the applicant had not specifically put the disputed-handwriting defence to the complainant in cross-examination.

The WhatsApp conversations and other material could be assessed by the Trial Court, but did not make handwriting examination indispensable; the applicant could seek to rebut the presumptions through other admissible evidence.

The lower courts’ orders therefore disclosed no ground for inherent-jurisdiction intervention.

It affirmed the Trial Courts’ orders dated 16.12.2025 rejecting the expert-examination applications and the revisional orders dated 26.05.2026.