Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2832
DELHI HIGH COURT
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
A.R. Banerjee - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Resopndent
Crl. M.C. No. 3742 of 2013
Decided On : 08-08-2014
For the Petitioner:Ms. Rebeca M. John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bara and Mr. Nikhil Ahuja, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Parveen Bhati, APP.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Vivek Sood and Mr. Ajit Nair, Advocates.
The admission of writing on the cheques precluded the need for a handwriting expert opinion, and the interpretation of Sections 20 and 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act established that the petitioner cannot dispute the contents of the cheques due to his admitted signature.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Filling - Section 138 - 20, 87
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of inducing and cohabiting with the complainant under false pretenses and issuing dishonored cheques. The petitioner sought handwriting expert opinion, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's admission of writing on the cheques precluded the need for a handwriting expert opinion. The court interpreted Sections 20 and 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to establish that the petitioner cannot dispute the contents of the cheques due to his admitted signature.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a handwriting expert opinion to dispute the contents of the cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's admission of writing on the cheques precluded the need for a handwriting expert opinion. The interpretation of Sections 20 and 87 of the Act established that the petitioner cannot dispute the contents of the cheques due to his admitted signature.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as without merits.
1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) the petitioner assails the order dated 19.8.2013 passed by learned SCJ-Cum-RC, New Delhi in complaint case No. 5536/1/09/12 titled as “Anil Dogra v. A.R. Banerjee” for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the ‘Act’), whereby the application moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking opinion of GEQD in relation to hand writing of the body of the cheques in question was dismissed.
2. In short, the facts of the present case are that respondent No. 2/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that sometime in January, 1982, the petitioner met the complainant at New Delhi and represented himself as a divorced person. On believing the representation of the petitioner, the complainant gave her consent for the marriage and accordingly, on 15.2.1982 the petitioner and respondent No. 2 tied their marital knot at New Delhi. The petitioner induced and cohabited with the complainant for almost 20 years, keeping the complainant in false belief that the complainant is his legally wedded wife. The petitioner/accused never disclosed about his living wife, Mrs. Nandita Banerjee and their two issues to the complainant. In November, 2001 respondent No. 2 came to know about living wife and two children of the petitioner. It is also alleged that in December, 2001, respondent No. 2 confronted the petitioner with the said news and the petitioner confessed his guilt. In order to compensate the complainant, the petitioner issued cheque No. 412509 dated 10.1.2002 for the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs; cheque No. 412510 dated 10.2.2002 for the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and other cheque No. 412511 dated 10.3.2002 for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, all drawn on Andhra Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. The respondent No. 2 presented the said cheques for encashment which were dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. The respondent No. 2 issued legal notice dated 6.4.2002. Despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheques in question.
3. The respondent No. 2/complainant adduced his evidence and the statement of accused/petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.12.2012.
4. During the pendency of the complaint, petitioner moved an application seeking opinion of GEQD in relation to handwriting on the body of the cheques in question. The said application was dismissed by learned trial court vide impugned order dated 19.08.2013.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already cross-examined respondent No. 2/ complainant. During cross-examination of the complainant, CW-1 Ms. Anil Dogra it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the payee and the amount in figures on the cheques in question have been filled by the complainant and the complainant has manipulated the cheques in question and entered his name as payee.
7. The main plea of learned senior counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the complainant had not filled up the contents of the cheques in question and that those were misused by the petitioner after filling up the blanks therein and, thus, he was entitled to prove the same by way of opinion of handwriting expert. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam”, (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 urged that the petitioner has admitted his writing on the cheques in question and no useful purpose will be served by obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert. It was urged on behalf of respondent No. 2 that complaint was filed in the year 2002 and the applicat
