MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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

Similar News