2019 (7) TMI 1949 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - admission of signatures - compounding of offences - Section 45 and Section 73 of the Evidence Act read with Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code - HELD THAT - It means that the petitioner has admitted that he has issued the cheque, but for Rs. 2,50,000/- and has admitted his signatures on the cheque. So, when he has admitted the signatures on the negotiable instrument, no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the same to the handwriting expert. It is further to be noted that he has admitted his signatures on the cheque, in these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no reason to inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Revisional Court are in accordance with law. So, these needs no interference. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition under Section 482 for quashing order, Application under Evidence Act dismissed, Admissibility of cheque, Revision petition dismissal, Need for handwriting expert, Interlocutory nature of order, Admission of signatures on cheque.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal revision case. The respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging misuse of a cheque. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that he only signed the cheque as security, and the respondent misused it by filing a fake complaint.

2. The petitioner had applied under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, along with Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to send the alleged cheque to a handwriting expert. However, the trial court dismissed this application, which led to a series of petitions and revisions. The petitioner aimed to prove that he did not fill in the cheque, emphasizing the importance of the handwriting expert's examination.

3. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner's counsel contended that since the petitioner admitted issuing the cheque and his signatures on it, no case could be made against him. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the offense was serious and non-compoundable, urging the dismissal of the petition.

4. The court examined the records in detail and highlighted the importance of the impugned order, emphasizing its interlocutory nature. The court also referred to the petitioner's admission during the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where he acknowledged issuing the cheque for a lower amount than alleged by the complainant.

5. Based on the admission of signatures by the petitioner and the lack of substantial grounds for interference, the court concluded that the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court were lawful. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed, directing the parties to appear before the lower court on a specified date.

6. The judgment also addressed pending applications, stating that they would be disposed of accordingly. The comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the case highlighted the legal arguments, evidentiary considerations, and the court's reasoning behind dismissing the petition under Section 482.