Blank Cheque Signed and Handed Over Cannot Later Be Disputed Merely Because It Was Filled By Another — Madras High Court Denies Forensic Referral

“Presumption Under NI Act Survives Even If Contents Filled By Another; Signature Is Key” — In a significant ruling Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reaffirmed the legal sanctity of a signed blank cheque, stating that "once the signature is admitted, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act automatically comes into play." Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the trial court’s decision refusing to refer the cheque to a handwriting expert. The Court relied on binding precedents to rule that issuance of a signed cheque — even if blank — carries with it a presumption of liability, and no forensic examination of handwriting is warranted unless forgery is explicitly pleaded.

The revision petitioner, A. Mani, challenged an order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Palani, rejecting his plea to refer a cheque and a bank challan to a handwriting expert.

The factual foundation of the case was rooted in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent, S. Natarajan, alleged that Mani issued a cheque in discharge of a debt. Mani, however, claimed that the cheque was issued blank and only handed to the respondent’s father as security. After the father's death, the respondent allegedly filled in the cheque and misused it.

The petitioner contended that the handwriting on the cheque and the challan was not his, despite admitting that the signature on the cheque was his. The Trial Court rejected the application to refer the documents to a handwriting expert, prompting Mani to file the present revision petition.

“Cheque Does Not Lose Sanctity Merely Because Filled By Another” — Court Applies Binding Precedents

Justice Shamim Ahmed cited the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) AIR SC 2446] and Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441], where it was authoritatively held that:

“If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily handed over, the payee is authorised to fill in the details. That alone does not invalidate the instrument. The onus is on the accused to prove the cheque was not issued in discharge of any liability.”

Reiterating this principle, the Madras High Court stated: “The cheque does not lose its sanctity merely due to the fact that the same has been filled in by some other person.”

The Court further relied on Purushottam v. Manohar K. Deshmukh to reinforce the doctrine that handing over a signed blank cheque is tantamount to implied consent to its use in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

“Signature Admitted, No Forgery Alleged – No Case for Handwriting Expert” — Court Rejects Petition

The Court found that no allegation of forgery or theft had been made by the petitioner. The only ground urged was that the cheque was filled up later, and hence, should be verified by expert analysis.

Rejecting this contention outright, the Court held:

“In the present case, there is no denial of issuance of cheque and signature of the petitioner on the cheque. There is no foundation laid by the petitioner's counsel to say that the cheque was stolen or signature was forged.”

The Court observed that when the signature is admitted and no specific allegation of forgery is made, the question of sending the cheque for forensic comparison of handwriting does not arise.

“The question of referring the cheque to the Expert for getting opinion on the contents of the cheque other than the signature is not useful to the Petitioner.”

“Security Cheque Defence Not Enough to Bypass Presumption” — Court Emphasizes Burden of Proof on Accused

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the cheque was issued merely as “security,” noting that such a defence does not dilute the statutory presumption unless cogent evidence is led to rebut it.

“The contention that the cheque was issued for security is not plausible in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

The Court clarified that the defence of “security cheque” cannot, by itself, become a valid ground to invalidate the instrument or demand expert examination.

The Madras High Court has once again underscored the robust presumption in favour of a complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment reiterates that mere allegations about the contents of the cheque being filled later are insufficient to demand forensic referral, unless there is specific denial of signature or allegation of forgery/theft.

This ruling closes the door on routine requests for expert examination aimed at delaying cheque bounce proceedings and reinforces that "admission of signature seals the presumption of debt", shifting the burden squarely on the accused to dislodge it with credible evidence.

“This Court finds that the petition is devoid of merits, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference.”

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025