Rajinder Singh Vs Prashant Sharma

2026:HHC:6947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.430 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.02.2026 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 _______________________________________________________________________ Shri Rajinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Shri Prashant Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinender Panwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby application filed by the petitioner/accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for comparison of the handwriting came to be rejected, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, praying

¶4

2026:HHC:6947

¶5

2

¶6

therein to set aside the aforesaid order and allow the application for comparison of handwriting.

¶7

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent/complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) , titled as Prashant Sharma Vs. Rajinder Singh , registered as case No.900739/14 (RBT 39-3 of 15/14) (Annexure P-2), alleging therein that he had paid some earnest money to the accused for purchase of flat, however, accused failed to keep his promise and issued two cheques for return of earnest money. Complainant’s case, which is subject matter of the present case, pertains to one of the cheques, alleged to have been issued by the accused for return of earnest money. Accused raised a defence that no earnest money was ever paid by the complainant, rather money paid by him was invested in share market at his own risk through M/S Bear Bull Global Commodities. Accused also set up a case that he had given security cheques to many investors including the complainant. A document regarding issuance of security Cheque by the accused to the complainant was also executed, which was duly signed by the complainant. However, in order to resolve the dispute, accused had issued a cheque bearing No.827584 of Allahabad Bank, Shimla, dated 09.05.2013 in the sum of 1,50,000/-, which was₹

¶8

2026:HHC:6947

¶9

3

¶10

got encashed by the complainant. In nutshell, case of the accused is that though he had settled and closed the account with the complainant, but yet he did not return the security cheques and misused the same.

¶11

During pendency of the trial, accused preferred an application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, for comparison of handwriting, averring therein similar facts, as have been noticed hereinabove. In addition to aforesaid facts, it also came to be averred in the application that cheque bearing No.827584 dated 09.05.2013 of Allahabad Bank, which was cleared and the amount of ₹1,50,000/- was received by the complainant, was exhibited as Ex.RW1/D, but accused has denied his signature on this document. It is further claimed in the application that in addition to this, the accused has also produced a document Ex.DX-4, but the complainant had denied his signatures over that document as well and as such, in order to prove the signatures of the complainant, the admitted signatures over the complaint, affidavit, preliminary evidence and statement given in Court, have to be compared with the questioned signatures over Ex.DX-4, Ex.RW/D and on Ex.DX-3 by an expert.

¶12

Respondent by way of filing reply to the application contested the aforesaid application, stating therein that application is

¶13

2026:HHC:6947

¶14

4

¶15

not maintainable and the same has been filed with a view to delay the outcome of the main case. On merits, pendency of complaint before the Court has been admitted, but all the averments have been denied. It is stated in the reply that though the accused had taken the defence that he had invested the money of the respondent in the share market, but he has not brought any record of registration with SEBI, which is mandatory requirement.

¶16

On the basis of afore pleadings adduced on record, Court below rejected the application filed by the accused vide impugned order. In the afore background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and allow the application.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for.

¶18

Perusal of Cheque Ex.RW1/D clearly reveals that same pertains to the month of May 2013, whereas Cheque, which is subject matter of the instant proceedings, is dated 12.02.2014. It is not understood as to how a cheque pertaining to the year 2013 would prove

¶19

the defence of the accused in a complaint which is based on the Cheque

¶20

2026:HHC:6947

¶21

5

¶22

dated 12.02.2014. Moreover, the Cheque Ex.RW1/D is for a sum of ₹1,50,000/-, whereas as per the Cheque Ex.CW1/A, accused is presumed to be liable to the extent of 10,00,000/-. In the statement₹ recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused submitted that he had given a blank security Cheque to the respondent, but in the application filed under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, he changed his defence after the statements of the complainant as well as defence witnesses were recorded. Interestingly, accused does not intend to get his own signatures on the Cheque examined by an expert, rather he intends to get the signatures of the complainant examined by comparing the admitted signatures over the complaint, affidavit, preliminary evidence and statement given in the Court with the denied signatures over the Ex.DX-4, Ex.RW1/D and Ex.DX-3. Even if averments contained in the application are believed to be correct, there appears to be merit in the finding returned by the learned Court below that respondent-complainant cannot be made to give evidence against himself. Leaving everything aside, it is not always mandatory in every case to send the disputed signatures for expert examination, as the Court itself is competent to compare the same.

¶23

2026:HHC:6947

¶24

6

¶25