ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is an accused facing trial for offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque said to be issued by the petitioner could not be honored for the reason that signature did not tally. 3. Petitioner raised objection before the learned trial Judge that the cheque is not signed by the petitioner, therefore, it should be sent to forensic experts for verification of signature. The learned Court below accepted the plea of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to get the signature verified forensically by any private expert because the State Forensic Science Laboratory was already overburdened with the forensic examination relating to rape and murder cases. The learned Court below relied upon a judgment of this Court in Neetu Pareek Vs. Ravishankar & Ors., wherein, this Court observed that it is common knowledge that the State Forensic Laboratory is heavily overburdened with reports to be submitted in rape and murder cases at the earliest due to lack of infrastructure. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the experts engaged in forensic examination of evidences of rape and murder are not the same as those engaged in the examination of handwriting, therefore, the reasoning cannot be applicable. Moreover sanctity of private expert without naming expert in the impugned order would itself be a question of doubt and challenge, therefore the Court below should decide the name of the private expert or revisit the matter to be sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic verification of signature on the cheque. 5. Learned counsel submits that the Court is going to pass final judgment on 29.04.2023 itself. 6. Respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and asserted that the Court below has taken care of the rights of the petitioner, hence impugned order is not required to be interfered with. 7. Considering the fact that even private expert must be a person of repute having good experience in the field, therefore, the Court is expected to assign the matter to the named private expert or it may assign it to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. 8. Hence to prevent miscarriage of justice, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh. 8. Hence to prevent miscarriage of justice, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh. The Court shall not pass any judgment without deciding on the prayer of the petitioner and giving reasonable opportunity of leading evidence on the opinion of the expert. 9. The instant petition is accordingly allowed.