Execution of a cheque constitutes a rebuttable presumption regardless of who filled it, key in determining liability under Section 138.

O R D E R Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.976/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chittur, (Trial Court), which has been filed by the 1^st respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, N.I.Act).

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, 1^st respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had borrowed Rs.1,65,000/- on the assurance of returning the amount immediately. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a cheque for the above amount by putting his signature in the presence of the complainant. The cheque on presentation to the bank, got dishonored and the present complaint has been filed. During the cross examination of the 1^st respondent ( PW1), it was brought out that PW1 does not pay income tax. Further, the entries in the cheque were not written by the petitioner. There are differences in the writings in the cheque and the petitioner’s signature. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner filed an application to refer the cheque to a handwriting expert. However, by Annexure G order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application. Annexure G order is ex-facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The petitioner’s specific case is that, although he executed the cheque, the same is not supported by consideration. Furthermore, the 1^st respondent has filled all the details in the cheque. Therefore, the cheque may be referred for expert opinion.

5. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tiwari ( 2022 (5) KHC 560 ), the Honourable Supreme Court has emphatically held that it is immaterial if the cheque is filled by any other person other than the drawer, if the drawer admits the execution of the cheque. Presumption which arises on executing the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by a report of a handwriting expert. The above view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar ( AIR 2019 SC 2446 ) and Sandhya Rani G. v. State of Kerala and Another (2020 KHC 3074).

In light of the above exposition of law and that the petitioner does not dispute the execution of the cheque, I do not find any error or illegality in Annexure G order warranting interference by this Court. Nonetheless, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the complaint, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation made in this order or the impugned order.

Sd/-