2021 (2) TMI 979 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - seeking one effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence - Section 45 read with Section 73 of Negotiable Instruments Act for examination of the hand writing expert and for the report of the FSL - HELD THAT - Regarding first application the contention of the petitioners was that the cheque in question had been stolen by Mr. Davinder Kalra @ Raju Kalra, proprietor of the complainant Company with the help of unknown person and was misused by hatching a criminal conspiracy with the complainant. Neither the handwriting nor the ink of the cheque matched in any manner. The cheque had been manipulated and fabricated by the complainant. Said Davinder Kalra was unable to explain as to how the cheque, which was a bearer cheque, was presented and how it was crossed and made into an account payee cheque. The complainant even did not know the whereabouts of the employee of the petitioner Company who had handed over the cheque to him. It was submitted that the handwriting as well as ink used in the disputed cheque were admitted by the complainants witnesses, therefore, it was necessary to send the disputed cheque for obtaining FSL report to clear the doubts. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application noted that the signatures on the cheque had been admitted by the accused. The petitioner while recording his defence statement under Section 263 (g) had specifically admitted the signatures on the cheque in question. The trial Court relied upon a decision of this Court in GURMEET SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2012 (2) TMI 701 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that once an accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque, he could not escape his liability on the ground that the same had not been signed by him. When the blank cheque is signed and handed over, it means that the person signing it has given implied authority to the holder of the cheque to fill the blank which has been left while signing the cheque. The petitioners have not been able to show as to how the evidence of the witnesses sought to be summoned is absolutely essential for the just decision of the case. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of applications under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 311 of Cr. P.C.
2. Examination of hand writing expert and FSL report.
3. Calling of witness Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11 for examination.
4. Dismissal of applications with costs.
5. Justification for dismissal of applications.
6. Compliance with previous court orders.
7. Grant of fair opportunity to lead defense evidence.
8. Dismissal of petition.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad, which dismissed their applications under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for examination of a hand writing expert and for the report of the FSL, and under Section 311 of Cr. P.C. for calling specific witnesses for examination. The petitioners alleged that the cheque in question had been stolen and manipulated by the complainant, and hence, requested for examination of the hand writing expert and specific witnesses. However, the trial court dismissed the applications with costs, citing that the signatures on the cheque had been admitted by the accused, and the applications seemed to be filed merely to delay the proceedings.

Regarding the first application, the trial court noted that the petitioners had already been granted one effective opportunity to lead their defense evidence, which they had availed of. The court found no justification for further delay and dismissed the application with costs. The court emphasized that the petitioners had not shown how the evidence of the witnesses sought to be summoned was essential for the just decision of the case.

In respect of the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, the trial court observed that the petitioners had already examined two defense witnesses in compliance with a previous court order. The court dismissed the application, stating that it appeared to be a tactic to delay the proceedings, especially since the witnesses sought to be examined had been known to the petitioners since the filing of the complaint.

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the applications seemed to be aimed at delaying the proceedings. The court noted that the petitioners had been granted a fair opportunity to lead their defense evidence previously, and the dismissal of the applications was justified. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.