Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Puspa Garg W/o Shri Harish Chand Garg - Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kumar Jhiriwal S/o Shri Indrabhan Jhirwal - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 347 of 2025
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 528 - Revision petition against trial court's order - The revisional court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order that denied sending a disputed cheque for signature verification to the State FSL, Jaipur. The trial court had dismissed the application for verification, stating it was an interlocutory order. The revisional court found that the trial court's decision affected the rights of the parties and thus was not merely interlocutory. (Paras 1, 8, 25)
(B) Fair Trial - The court emphasized the importance of allowing the accused to present evidence and rebut the case against them, highlighting the necessity of sending the cheque for expert verification to ensure justice. (Paras 10, 19)
(C) Maintainability of Revision - The court ruled that the revision petition was maintainable despite the complainant's objections regarding the interlocutory nature of the trial court's order. (Paras 7, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque issued by the accused was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused claimed the cheque was forged and sought verification of signatures, which the trial court initially denied.
Findings of Court:
The revisional court ordered the cheque to be sent to the State FSL for verification, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and effective adjudication.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the revision petition and whether the trial court's order was interlocutory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's order was not merely interlocutory as it affected the rights of the parties, and emphasized the importance of allowing expert verification of signatures for a fair trial.
Result: The criminal misc. petition filed by the complainant was dismissed, and the order for sending the cheque to the State FSL was upheld.
ORDER :
1. By filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner/complainant has made a challenge to the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Alwar (for short 'the learned revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.76/2024, whereby the learned revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by the non-petitioners/accused and set aside the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) Cases No.2, Alwar (for short 'the learned trial court') in Case No. 23/1452/2021 and further ordered that for verification of the signatures alleged to be of the non-petitioners/accused on the disputed cheque, be got verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur by sending the cheque to the State FSL, Jaipur.
2. Vide order dated 01.10.2024, which was under challenge in the criminal revision petition, the learned trial court dismissed the application dated 08.08.2024 filed by the non-petitioners/ accused for sending the disputed cheque to the State FSL, Jaipur for verification of the signatures over it.
3. The brief facts of the case borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner/ complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the non-petitioners/ accused stating that the complainant/petitioner is a Member of the non- petitioner/accused No.3- Groupnet Education & Welfare Society (for short 'the Society') way back from 2008 which was providing higher and quality education to the students. It was further stated that the said Society borrowed an amount from the complainant /petitioner and the same was shown in the balance-sheet of the Society. When the complainant/ petitioner was in need of the money, she gave a demand notice by Registered Post to the Society to pay back the amount along-with the interest and thereafter, the Society issued a Cheque No.968592 of Rs.71,93,484.86/- on 11.08.2021 to the complainant / petitioner. However, when the said cheque was processed to the Bank, same was dishonoured on account of 'Insufficient Funds' in the Bank account and thereafter the complainant / petitioner sent a notice on 13.02.2021 to the Society as well as its Post bearers and then has filed the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings of complaint the non-petitioners/ accused on 8.8.2024 filed an application and prayed that the Cheque No. 968592 is a forged and fabricated document as signatures on it alleged to be of accused/ appellant are forged one. Therefore, the cheque in dispute be sent to the State FSL, Jaipur for examination. It was stated in the application that the non- petitioners/ accused have taken a defence since very beginning about the forgery of the cheque in dispute. It was further stated in the application that the non-petitioners/ accused got the signatures verified by a private handwriting expert wherein it was opined that the signatures on the cheque in dispute are forged, and therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to send the cheque in dispute to the State FSL, Jaipur, an independent agency for verification of signatures.
5. Reply to the application dated 08.08.2024 was filed by the complainant /petitioner denying the facts stated in the application and it was further stated that the cheque has not been dishonoured because of mismatching of the signatures but it was dishonoured on account of 'Insufficient Funds' in the account. It was also stated in the reply that the application has been filed so as to delay the proceedings of the case. It was also stated in the reply to the application that in view of the private handwriting expert report obtained by the non-petitioners/ accused, the complainant/ petitioner also got the signatures on the disputed cheque verified by the handwriting expert wherein it was opined that the signatures on the cheque in dispute are original and there is no forgery.
6.
The court ruled that a trial court's order denying signature verification on a disputed cheque is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged in a revision petition, emphasizing the right to a fai....
The court emphasized the necessity of sending a disputed cheque for forensic examination to ascertain signature authenticity, ruling that the trial court's order was not merely interlocutory and thus....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide sufficient evidence to rebut such presumption, which the petitioners failed to do.
A cheque issued for repayment establishes liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused, who failed to provide sufficient evidenc....
The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.
The accused has the right to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and must be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, including the examination of a handwriting expert.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the accused to fair trial and the need to provide an opportunity to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act, as emphas....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
