2015 (12) TMI 1878 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - legally enforceable liability or not - blank cheques were handed over to the petitioner with the signature of respondent No. 1 - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - In the present case in hand the petitioner is coming with a specific case that the cheques were handed over duly signed and he had not filled in the contents which would include the body of the cheques and the amount which is disputed. The respondent No. 1 has to be given a fair chance to substantiate the defence. In that view of the matter there are no case for interference under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Criminal writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent for dishonored cheques. Respondent claims cheques were security for a loan. Dispute over filling in cheque amounts. Application for handwriting expert opinion on cheques rejected initially, later allowed. Petitioner challenges the order allowing expert opinion.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The petitioner filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent for dishonored cheques issued towards a legally enforceable liability. Respondent claims the cheques were security for a loan and disputes the filling in of cheque amounts. This issue involves the interpretation and application of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, focusing on the dishonor of cheques and the legal consequences thereof.

Issue 2: Application for Handwriting Expert Opinion
The respondent initially filed an application for a handwriting expert opinion on the cheques, which was rejected as premature. Subsequently, after the petitioner led evidence, another application for expert opinion was allowed. This issue involves procedural aspects of evidence, including the admissibility of expert opinions and the timing of such applications during legal proceedings.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Interpretation
The petitioner argued against the need for expert opinion, citing legal precedents such as G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and Shri Prakash Sevantilal Vora v. State of Maharashtra. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on the necessity of expert opinion to substantiate the defense. This issue delves into the application of legal precedents and their relevance in determining the necessity of expert opinions in specific cases.

Judgment Analysis:
The judge considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the need for a handwriting expert opinion on the disputed cheques. Referring to legal precedents, the judge distinguished the present case from previous decisions. The judge emphasized the respondent's right to substantiate their defense and concluded that interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court was not warranted. Consequently, the Criminal Writ Petitions were dismissed, keeping all contentions open, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the importance of allowing a fair chance for the respondent to present their defense and the court's discretion in such matters.