Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (2) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (2) TMI 412 - SC - Indian Laws


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates