Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024Cr.M.P./2244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a cheque dishonour case sought quashing of the magistrate's order rejecting his belated application for expert examination of his signature on the cheque. The High Court found no illegality: cheque was not dishonoured for signature mismatch and the plea was raised late, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2244 of 2024

¶2

Dilip Kumar Singh, aged about 71 years, s/o Late Brahmanand Singh, r/o 21, ward no.38, Mohalla-Mathura, P.O. & P.S.-Biharsarif, Dist.Nalanda, State Bihar- 803101

¶3

.... Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Ranjeet Singh, a proprietor Firm through Ranjeet Kumar Singh, s/o Sri Arvind Singh, r/o Q. No. DT-20161, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.Ranchi-834004

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P.

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 1253 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.4624 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ranchi rejected the prayer made by the petitioner to obtain the opinion of the expert as to whether the signature of the drawer has been mentioned in the cheque for dishonour of which the complaint case has been filed involving the offences punishable under

¶14

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶15

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2024

¶17

The brief fact of the case is that the cheque in question was dishonoured for insufficiency in the funds in the account and not for mismatching of the signature of the drawer. The petitioner who is the accused person of the case though replied to the notice of the demand of the money given by the complainant to him but therein he never took the plea that the cheque has not been signed by him. At the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the first time the petitioner-accused person took the plea that his signature is not appearing in the cheque. The defence evidence was closed for the first time on 19.12.2023. The complaint case was fixed for argument. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce evidence which was allowed. Again the defence evidence was closed on 15.02.2024 but at that time also, the petitioner did not file any petition for obtaining the opinion of any expert.

¶18

The learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ranchi considered that the case is five years old and at a belated stage, the petitioner has taken the defence that he has not signed the cheque. The bank did not dishonour the cheque for mismatching of the signature of the drawer of the cheque. At the time of examination of the witnesses of the complainant, in their cross-examination, the petitioner did not dispute his signature in the concerned cheque

¶19

¶20

Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2024

¶21

and the petition has been filed only to delay the disposal of the case. Hence, rejected the same.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an old man of 71 years and he cannot remember about his signature on the cheque. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue goes to the root of the matter and it can make or break the case of the petitioner, therefore, examination of the signature by an expert is necessary for arriving at a just and proper decision. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶23

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial MagistrateIII, Ranchi. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that experts evidence as to handwriting or signature is opinion evidence and can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.

¶25

Now coming to the facts of the case, the cheque was not dishonoured for mismatching of signature. In his reply to the

¶26

¶27

Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2024

¶28

legal notice demanding the cheque amount, the petitioner has not taken the plea that his signature was not appearing in the cheque concerned nor has he taken the said plea in the crossexamination of the witnesses of the complainant. For the first time the petitioner raised the plea during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner never filed such petition during the defence evidence nor filed such petition once the defence evidence was again reopened consequent the complainant filing the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 1253 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.4624 of 2019.

¶30

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶32

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 9^th September, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶33

¶34

Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2024

Dilip Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dilip Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Sinha Alias Rocky Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamakhya Yadav Alias Kemakhya Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohammad Ibrar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shabnam Praveen Alias Shabnam Parveen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shekh Khalid Alias Shiekh Khalid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ayub Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand