[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bharat Ku Sahu @ Bharat Sahoo vs Sk. Riazat ....... Opposite Party(S) on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 32 of 2026
Bharat Ku Sahu @ Bharat Sahoo ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Samarendra Bahadur, Adv.
-Versus-
Sk. Riazat ....... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Deepak Ku. Sahoo, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
02.02.2026
Order No.
02.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., (LR &
LTV), Kendrapara in 1CC Case No.88 of 2024.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had filed a petition before the
learned J.M.F.C., (LR & LTV), Kendrapara to send the cheque to
handwriting expert/forensic laboratory to verify that the scriber
of the cheque and the deposit slip are the same and to determine
the age of the ink. However, the learned Magistrate has rejected
the same on the ground that the Petitioner had ample
opportunity to prove the signature as well as the details
appearing on the cheque which was not his own handwriting
during the stage of defence evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that being
aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2025, the Petitioner is
constrained to approach this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on a decision of
the Apex Court in T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar1 . The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"9. The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of
the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The very fact that by reason thereof, only a
prima facie right had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable
instrument and the same being subject to the conditions as noticed
hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant
was bona fide. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this
Court in Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) [(2007) 2 SCC
258] (in which one of us, L.S. Panta, J., was a member) wherein it was held :
"12. Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry
under CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers
under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the
document for enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert to
compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or
signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance
of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and
if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for
initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good
material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the
document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has
Location: OHC
Date: 03-Feb-2026 17:24:56
(2008) 5 SCC 633
deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot
be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her
evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. "Fair trial" includes
fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence.
Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that
right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed
to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be
jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them.
10. However, it is not necessary to have any expert opinion on the question
other than the following :
"Whether the writings appearing in the said cheque on the front page is
written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed as
"T.Nagappa" on the front page as well as on the reverse, or in other words,
whether the age of the writing on Ex.P2 on the front page is the same as that
of the signature "T.Nagappa" appearing on the front as well as on the reverse
of the Cheque Ex.P2?"
11. Ms. Suri, however, pointed out that the application of the appellant being
one under Section 293 of the Code of criminal Procedure was rightly rejected.
It is now a well settled principle of law that non-mentioning or wrong
mentioning of provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had
the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly with the aforementioned directions.
Appeal is allowed."
7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has objected to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He
further submits that the Petitioner had filed the said petition with
an intention to delay the trial. He further submits that the
Date: 03-Feb-2026 17:24:56 of the handwriting on the cheque when he gave his reply to the
Advocate notice nor did his appearance in the court during the
time of charge or after receiving the copy of evidence.
8. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made,
this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order
dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C (LR & LTV),
Kendrapara in 1CC No.88 of 2024.
9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
