Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 412 - SC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - offences u/s 138 of NI Act - alleged forgery of four receipts - HELD THAT - On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the said Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed in the suit were sent to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2-Mahendra kumar. It was only thereafter, complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR No.I-194/2016 was registered on 28.12.2016 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts . When the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, in our view, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. It is also to be pointed out that in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of handwriting expert is a relevant piece of evidence; but it is not a conclusive evidence. It is always open to the plaintiff-appellant No.3 to adduce appropriate evidence to disprove the opinion of the handwriting expert. That apart, Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to compare the admitted and disputed writings for the purpose of forming its own opinion. Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered. The High Court erred in quashing the criminal case filed by appellant No.3-Hasmukhbhai under Section 138 of N.I. Act. As pointed out earlier, Yogeshbhai has admitted the issuance of cheques. When once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3. The nature of presumptions under Section139 of the N.I. Act and Section 118(a) of the Indian Evidence Act are rebuttable - Though, the Court has the power to quash the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the legal issues like limitation, etc. Criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against Yogeshbhai ought not have been quashed merely on the ground that there are inter se dispute between appellant No.3 and respondent No.2. Without keeping in view the statutory presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the High Court, has committed a serious error in quashing the criminal complaint in C.C.No.367/2016 filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR No.I-194/2016. 2. Quashing of Criminal Case in C.C.No.367/2016 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. Alleged forgery and fabrication of receipts. 4. Issuance and dishonor of cheques. 5. Prima facie case of forgery and cheating. 6. Relevance and conclusiveness of handwriting expert's opinion. 7. Statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of FIR No.I-194/2016: The appeals arose from the High Court's decision to dismiss the application to quash FIR No.I-194/2016, which was registered based on allegations of forgery and cheating involving four receipts totaling ?1,20,00,000/-. The High Court referred to a handwriting expert's opinion indicating that the signatures on the receipts did not match those of the complainant, Mahendrakumar. The Supreme Court noted that the genuineness of the receipts was already an issue in a pending civil suit (Summary Suit No.105/2015), and the continuation of the FIR would prejudice the civil proceedings. The Court emphasized that the opinion of a handwriting expert is relevant but not conclusive evidence and that the civil court could independently compare the signatures. Consequently, the FIR was quashed to avoid abuse of the court process. 2. Quashing of Criminal Case in C.C.No.367/2016 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act: The High Court had quashed the criminal case filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act based on the alleged forged receipts. The Supreme Court highlighted that the issuance of cheques by Yogeshbhai was admitted, which raised a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the complainant, Hasmukhbhai. The burden to rebut this presumption lay on the accused, Yogeshbhai. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the case without considering the statutory presumption and the need for the accused to provide evidence to rebut it. Therefore, the criminal case was restored. 3. Alleged Forgery and Fabrication of Receipts: The dispute involved four receipts allegedly signed by Mahendrakumar for payments made by Hasmukhbhai. The handwriting expert's report suggested the signatures were forged. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of the genuineness of the receipts was already framed in the civil suit, and the civil court was yet to determine it. The Court held that the continuation of the FIR based solely on the handwriting expert's opinion was inappropriate and prejudicial to the civil proceedings. 4. Issuance and Dishonor of Cheques: The case involved four cheques issued by Yogeshbhai, each for ?30,00,000/-, which were dishonored with the reason "Payment stopped by the Drawer." Hasmukhbhai filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act after issuing a legal notice. The Supreme Court emphasized the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and the need for the accused to rebut this presumption with evidence. 5. Prima Facie Case of Forgery and Cheating: The High Court had found a prima facie case of forgery and cheating based on the handwriting expert's report. The Supreme Court, however, stressed that the civil court was already addressing the issue of the receipts' genuineness, and the criminal proceedings should not continue to avoid prejudicing the civil case. 6. Relevance and Conclusiveness of Handwriting Expert's Opinion: The Supreme Court reiterated that while the handwriting expert's opinion is relevant evidence, it is not conclusive. The civil court has the authority to compare the disputed and admitted writings to form its own opinion. The continuation of the FIR based solely on the expert's opinion was deemed an abuse of the court process. 7. Statutory Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act: The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which favors the holder of the cheque. The burden to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The High Court's decision to quash the criminal case without considering this presumption was found to be erroneous. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, quashed FIR No.I-194/2016, dismissed the application to quash the criminal case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and restored the criminal case. The civil suit (Summary Suit No.105/2015) was directed to proceed independently without being influenced by the High Court's views.
|