UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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