Disputed cheque particulars alone do not necessitate forensic examination when the drawer admits the signature.

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from dishonour of a cheque dated 7 July 2022. After taking cognisance and issuing summons, the Magistrate proceeded to record evidence.

The petitioner admitted his signature but disputed the cheque’s particulars. He claimed he had signed and retained the cheque blank since 2018, and that it was misplaced or stolen in 2022; he sought its referral to the Forensic Science Laboratory under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Magistrate rejected the application, and the petitioner challenged that order.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permits expert evidence on matters including handwriting, but a forensic examination must be shown to be necessary for the just adjudication of the proceedings.

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the relevant questions include whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and whether the statutory requirements were met; those matters are assessed at trial, having regard to the evidence and the NI Act’s statutory presumptions.

The fact that someone other than the drawer filled in the particulars does not, by itself, invalidate a cheque or determine liability.

The petitioner admitted his signature and sought examination principally to establish who filled in the particulars. The Court noted that his account—that he had retained a signed blank cheque for about four years and that it was later lost or stolen—was not supported by a police complaint; the material relied on concerned only a stop-payment instruction.

Even if forensic examination showed that another person filled in the particulars, that fact alone would not resolve liability or rebut the statutory presumptions. The petitioner remained free to establish his defence through admissible evidence at trial. In these circumstances, the examination had not been shown necessary, and the Magistrate’s discretionary decision disclosed no sufficient basis for interference.

It clarified that its observations were confined to that application and directed the trial Court to independently assess the evidence, statutory presumptions and available defences, and decide the complaint in accordance with law.