[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nrusingh@Nrusingha Swain vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 16 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5283 of 2025
Nrusingh@nrusingha Swain ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv.
- Deepak Ku Sahoo
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
Miss B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.12.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer
made therein.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the
accused in 1CC Case No.326 of 2022 thereby seeking to invoke
the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
challenging order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C.(LR<V), Kendrapara.
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially
1CC Case No.326 of 2022 was filed at the instance of the
Opposite Party No.2-Complainant alleging commission of an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He further
submitted that during examination of the complainant as P.W.1,
the accused-Petitioner moved an application with a prayer to send
the cheque to the handwriting expert as the Petitioner disputed the
signature on the cheque. Such petition having been been rejected
by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court
by filing the present application. On perusal of the record it
appears that in course of trial while the P.W.1 was being cross-
examined, the accused was represented by his lawyer under
Section 317 of the Cr.P.C.
5. In course of trial the case was posted to 23.09.2025 for
filing of objection to the petition dated 22.09.2025. On further
perusal of record it appears that on 22.09.2025 the Petitioner filed
an application under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
defer the cross-examination of P.W.1. It also appears from order
dated 22.09.2025 that earlier a petition had also been filed at the
instance of the accused-Petitioner with a prayer to send the cheque
to the handwriting expert.
6. On further perusal of order dated 23.09.2025 passed in the
above noted 1CC case it appears that the case was posted to that
date for filing of the objection petition. Learned counsel for the
complainant filed his objection to the petition dated 22.09.2025.
The petition filed to send the cheque to handwriting expert was
also taken up for hearing on that day. It was argued on behalf of
the defence that the signature on the cheque is a forged one and
that a cheque was never signed by the accused-Petitioner. Such
contention of the accused-Petitioner was countered by the counsel
for the complainant by stating that the petition has been filed with
an intention to delay the trial. It was also brought to the notice to
the learned trial Court that the accused had not taken such a plea
thereby disputing the authenticity of the signature at the first
instance. It was also contended that the accused-Petitioner will get
ample opportunity to prove his case during trial. Accordingly, the
prayer for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert was
objected to by the complainant.
7. After hearing learned counsels appearing for both sides, the
learned trial Court after taking note of the provision contained in
Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajitsinh
Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujaran, reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 77 concluded that the accused-Petitioner has not
submitted any specimen signature before the Court to compare the
same with the signature which appears on the cheque. As such in
the absence of any specimen signature which is admitted by the
accused as his own signature, the Court was not in a position to
send the cheque to the handwriting expert. While rejecting the
prayer of the accused-Petitioner, the learned trial Court has also
taken note of the legal position that the presumption under the N.I.
Act with regard to the signature is a rebuttable one and the
accused-Petitioner will get ample opportunity to lead evidence to
rebut, while recording of the evidence. Accordingly, the learned
trial Court has held that the Petition filed by the accused-Petitioner
is a premature one and the prayer made by the Petitioner has been
rejected.
8. On a careful examination of the impugned order dated
23.09.2025 this Court found no irregularity or illegality in the
impugned order. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with regard to
the procedure followed by the learned trial Court while
conducting the trial. However to ensure a fair trial to the accused-
Petitioner, this Court modifies order dated 23.09.2025 to the
extent that the Petitioner shall file another application after closure
of the complaint evidence along with his admitted signature.
9. In the event, learned trial Court is satisfied that the signature
contained in the cheque is required to be verified with the
admitted signature and that the Petitioner has been successful in
rebutting the evidence of the complainant with regard to the
genuineness of the signature, and it is open to the learned trial
Court to send such signature to handwriting expert. Further, taking
into consideration order dated 22.09.2025 wherein the cross-
examination of the P.W.1 has been dispensed with, this Court is of
the view that the same would eventually affect the fairness of the
trial. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant another opportunity to
the accused-Petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on a
single day and the complainant be discharged on the very same
day, subject to Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.1000/- (rupees one
thousand) to the complainant.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
