Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 52
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
Bhagat Singh Parihar – Respondent
MCRC 40157/2024
Akash Rathi,
The presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act favor the holder, and the accused must provide substantial evidence to rebut them; mere differences in handwriting do not invalidate a signed cheque.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 20, 87, 118(e), and 139 - Petition challenging orders rejecting handwriting examination of cheque - Court held that presumptions under the NI Act favor the complainant, and the accused must rebut them with evidence - Examination by handwriting expert deemed unnecessary for trial. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Presumptions under Negotiable Instruments Act - The accused is presumed liable for the cheque unless evidence is presented to the contrary - The court reiterated that mere differences in handwriting do not invalidate the cheque if it is duly signed. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for handwriting examination of a cheque in a case of dishonor due to insufficient funds, asserting a right to rebut the presumption of liability under the NI Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the orders of the lower courts and stated that the examination of the cheque's handwriting was unnecessary for the trial.
Issues: The main issues included whether the presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be rebutted by handwriting evidence and the implications of the accused's delay in filing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presumptions under the NI Act are rebuttable but require substantial evidence from the accused to challenge the validity of the cheque. The handwriting examination was deemed irrelevant to the core issue of liability.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This miscellaneous criminal case having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar pronounced the following:
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.P.C./Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No.21/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanwer, District Indore(M.P.) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1071 Signed by: PREETHA HARI 01.07.2024, passed in SCNIA No.63/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanwer, District Indore rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for examination of handwriting on the cheque in MCRC-40157-2024 question.
2. The exposition of the facts giving rise to the present petition is as under :-
(1) The respondent Bhagat Singh Parihar had filed a criminal complaint inter alia stating that he has advanced loan of Rs.9,40,000/- to the petitioner/Rakesh Gehlot. Rakesh had given a cheque no.- 828831 of IDBI Bank, Branch Ratlam Kothi, Indore on 04.11.2016 to the respondent for amount of Rs.9,40,000/- The complainant presented the cheque at Bank of India, Branch Sanwer on 19.12.2016, but the cheque was dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds in the account of accused Rakesh. Despite service of statutory notice, the accused did not pay the amount of cheque, therefore, criminal complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanwer. The complaint is pending for trial at SCNIA No.63/2017.
(2) The petitioner/accused preferred an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the handwriting on the cheque alleging that there is a difference in handwriting of the entries of cheque. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the application vide order dated 01.07.2024.
(3) The petitioner/accused preferred criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanwer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanwer rejected the revision petition vide order dated 02.09.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No.21/2024
3. This revision petition is filed assailing both the orders on the following grounds :-
MCRC-40157-2024
(1) The Courts below have failed to recognise that the petitioner has right of rebuttal against the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was trying to avail the right of rebuttal.
(2) There is prima facie difference in the handwriting of the accused and the handwriting appearing on the cheque. The examination of handwriting on the cheque is necessary for fair trial and the defense of the accused.
(3) The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate have failed to consider that if there is difference between the handwriting, the story alleged by the respondent during cross-examination would become false and baseless.
(4) The impugned orders are bad in law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly interpreted the proceedings and the law.
4. On these grounds, it is requested that the order dated 02.09.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No.21/2024 and the order dated 01.07.2024, passed in SCNIA No.63/2017 be set aside and the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the petitioner be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the cross examination of complainant Bhagat Singh PW1, contended that the complainant has stated that the cheque in question was filled by the accused. There is apparent difference in handwriting of the accused on the order-sheet of the Court and the handwriting on NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1071 Signed by: PREETHA HARI
cheque, therefore, examination of the contents of the cheque by the handwriting expert is necessary for the
