Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 2318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
CRM No.A-1017-MA of 2014 (O&M)
Paramjit Kaur
v.
Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur
{Decided on 24/07/2018}
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent
Dishonour of Cheque – Signature Mismatch – No offence u/s 138 N.I Act made out.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Signature Mismatch – Acquittal – Cheque was not returned due to insufficient funds but due to incomplete/differ signatures – No offence u/s 138 N.I Act made out – Acquittal upheld.
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Drawer of Cheque – Cheque in question, does not belong to accused but was from cheque book of her husband – Offence u/s 138 N.I Act not made out – Accused acquitted. (Para 13)
(C) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Advancement of Loan – Acquittal – No date, month and year has been mentioned as to when the liability arose and how it arose – No income tax return or any security document has been produced – There is no document on record to show the liability – There is also nothing to show as to what was the mode of payment i.e. by cash or cheque – Ingredients of S.138 NI Act not proved – Acquittal upheld. (Para 12)
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:
- Case Details: The case involves Paramjit Kaur (Applicant) vs. Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur (Respondent) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided on 24/07/2018, concerning the dishonour of a cheque due to a signature mismatch. [legal_document]
- Core Legal Issue: The primary issue is whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out when a cheque is dishonoured due to an incomplete or different signature, rather than insufficient funds. [legal_document]
- Factual Finding on Signature: The cheque was dishonoured with remarks "Drawer's Signature incomplete/differ" because it was signed as "Rajni" while the accused is "Rajinder Kaur," and the cheque belonged to her husband, not the accused. [23000686020011]
- Procedural History: The applicant sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, dated 27
Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.- Applicant-Paramjit Kaur has filed this application under Section 378(4) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur, challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted.
2. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.
3. As per the record, complainant Paramjit Kaur filed a complaint against accused Rajni @ Rajinder Kaur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. The brief averments of the complaint as noted by down in the judgment passed by learned JMIC, Patiala, are as under:-
“2. Brief facts as per averments made in the complaint are that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-from the complainant and in order to secure the repayment of said loan amount, accused issued a cheque bearing No.726545 dated 16.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Patiala in favour of complainant with an assurance that that the cheque was good for payment and would be honoured when presented. Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, for collection of amount but it was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused vide memo dated 12.8.2009 with the remarks “Drawer’s Signature incomplete/differ”. The accused had reason to believe that the aforesaid cheque will not be honoured by her banker as the accused has issued the said cheque under the signature of Rajni and thus cheated the complainant and committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter through legal notice dated 28.8.2009 sent through registered post accused was called upon to make the payment within the prescribed period of 15 days from the receipt of notice but accused failed to pay the same despite having received the notice. Hence the present complaint. “
4. The complainant examined herself as CW-1, CW-2 Gurbachan Singh, CW-3 Puneet Jain, CW-4 Kulwinder Kaur and CW-5 R.V.Vashista, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. After the close of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and she was confronted with the evidence of the complainant. She denied the incriminating evidence against her and pleaded false implication. She further pleaded as under:-
“I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated. The cheque in question has not been issued from an account maintained by me but the same is issued by some one else. The cheque in question does not bear my signatures. The complainant has not advanced any money/amount to me. The complainant has no capacity to advance such a huge amount. The complaint filed by the complainant is false one. No notice was received by me alleged to have been sent by the complainant.”
5. In defence, accused examined DW-1 Dr.Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert.
6. Learned JMIC, Patiala, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2014.
7. Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed.
8. Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared and contested the application.
9. Lower Court record was requisitioned.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
11. The perusal of the findings given by learned Court below shows that these have been given as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse or against the evidence and law. At the time of arguments, nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not been
