2020 (3) TMI 1341 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - application filed by petitioner for sending the cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram to obtain opinion regarding the handwriting of the entries in the cheque - respondent filed objection to the aforesaid application contending that the intention of the petitioner was only to protract the case and to cause delay in the disposal of the case. HELD THAT - The petitioner/accused has also no case that she had filled up the cheque in her own handwriting - When, neither the complainant nor the accused, has got a plea that the accused herself made the entries in the cheque, it eludes comprehension why the cheque should be sent for obtaining an opinion of the expert with regard to the handwriting of the entries in it. When the accused admits the signature in the cheque, it is immaterial whether some other person had made the entries in the cheque or filled it up. Even if some other person had filled up the cheque, it does not in any way affect the validity of the cheque - there are no illegality or impropriety in Annexure-A order passed by the learned Magistrate. The intention of the petitioner/accused was only to protract the proceedings in the case. The challenge made to Annexure-A order fails. The petition is liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for sending the cheque to Forensic Science Laboratory for handwriting analysis.
2. Legality and propriety of the order dismissing the application.
3. Dispute regarding entries in the cheque.
4. Interpretation of the complainant's statement in the trial court.
5. Applicability of legal principles from Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar case.
6. Validity of the cheque despite entries made by another person.
7. Intention of the accused to protract the proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an application to send the cheque for handwriting analysis. The second respondent objected, alleging the intention to delay the case.
2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application, leading to a challenge under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court analyzed the necessity of sending the cheque for expert opinion.
3. The dispute centered on entries in the cheque, not the signature. The complainant's statement indicated that neither the accused nor her husband wrote the entries.
4. The court interpreted the complainant's statement, emphasizing the absence of a claim that the accused wrote the entries herself.
5. Referring to Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar case, the court highlighted the legal principles regarding signed cheques and the presumption of liability unless evidence rebuts it.
6. The court emphasized that the validity of the cheque is not affected even if someone else filled it up, as long as the accused admits the signature.
7. Ultimately, the court found no illegality in the Magistrate's order, noting the accused's intention to prolong the case. The petition was dismissed, allowing the accused to present contentions in the trial court.

Conclusion:
The judgment upheld the Magistrate's decision, emphasizing the accused's admission of the signature's authenticity and the lack of necessity for handwriting analysis. The legal principles from the Bir Singh case were applied to establish liability and validity of the cheque. The accused's attempt to delay proceedings was noted, leading to the dismissal of the petition while granting the accused the opportunity to present arguments in the trial court.