Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal To Send Cheque For Handwriting Test After Accused Admitted Signature, Disputed Only Who Filled It

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; it was registered as C.C. No. 37650 of 2022.

After the complainant’s evidence and cross-examination, the petitioner, who admitted signing the cheque, applied under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to have its particulars examined by a handwriting expert.

He alleged that the respondent had forcibly obtained a signed blank cheque and that someone else filled in the particulars.

The Magistrate dismissed the application, and the petitioner challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act permits expert opinion on matters including handwriting.

Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption applies to a cheque, and the accused may seek to rebut it; Section 20 of that Act was also referred to in considering a signed blank instrument.

Sections 243(2) CrPC and the fair-trial principles discussed in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar recognise an accused’s right to present relevant defence evidence, while permitting refusal of an application that is vexatious, dilatory, or seeks evidence that would not assist in deciding a material issue.

Expert examination is not automatic: the court must assess the relevance and utility of the evidence sought.

The petitioner’s signature was admitted; the requested expert opinion concerned only who wrote the cheque’s particulars.

Even if the opinion showed that another person filled them in, that fact alone would not establish that the cheque was forcibly obtained, that it was not issued towards a liability, or that no legally enforceable debt existed.

The Court distinguished Kalyani Baskar, where the signature was disputed, and T. Nagappa, where the requested examination concerned the age of the signature in relation to the other writings and supported a specific defence of subsequent misuse.

Because the proposed examination would address authorship of the particulars, but not the material circumstances of issuance or liability, the Magistrate’s refusal disclosed no error warranting interference.

It stated that the petitioner remained at liberty to raise legally permissible defences, including that the cheque was forcibly obtained and was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability; the observations were confined to the expert-examination request and did not determine the defence on its merits.