Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

U/S 138 N.I. Act | Signature Admittance Overrules Need for Forensic Scrutiny: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Quashing Petition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Gujarat High Court, led by Honourable Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, rejected a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition aimed at quashing orders from lower courts in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner Parimal Maheshbhai Solanki admitted to his signature on the cheque but disputed the other writings. The Court, emphasizing the significance of the admitted signature, ruled against the necessity for forensic examination of the cheque’s writings.

The judgment hinged on the legal principle concerning the quashing of lower court orders in a dishonoured cheque case, focusing on the authenticity and the admittance of the petitioner’s signature versus the disputed writings on the cheque.

The complainant claimed that a cheque for Rs. 7,00,000 issued by the petitioner was dishonoured due to a blocked account. The petitioner acknowledged his signature on the cheque while disputing the writings, alleging misuse. Earlier, both the trial court and the revisional court dismissed the petitioner’s request for forensic analysis, pointing out that the signature was not disputed and the petitioner failed to establish a credible misuse defense.

Justice Suthar noted that the admittance of the signature on the cheque triggers a legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Citing cases like Kalamani Tex vs. P. Balasubramanian and Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh, the court held that there was no merit in sending the cheque for forensic examination when the signature itself was undisputed. The court distinguished this case from precedents where a bona fide defense about cheque misuse was established, observing the lack of such defense in the present case.

The High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the position that the admittance of the signature on the cheque diminishes the relevance of disputes over the writings on it. The absence of a credible defense or additional evidence from the petitioner led to the affirmation of the lower courts’ decisions.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2024

Parimal Maheshbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat

Latest Legal News