Dismissed¶¶22

Jauhar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2024Cr.M.P./2660/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 138 of N.I. Act; cheque dishonour; handwriting expert; expert evidence as opinion evidence; insufficiency of funds versus signature mismatch; demand notice not replied to; no cross-examination on signature; plea that cheque was lost and misused; petition filed to prolong the case; SDJM Lohardaga; Complaint Case no. 214 of 2015; Dayanand Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2016 3 JLJR 352; refusal to refer cheque for expert examination upheld; interim order vacated; dismissal of criminal miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to set aside the SDJM's order was refused and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. ¶¶22

Jauhar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to set aside the SDJM's order was refused and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.06.2018 of the learned SDJM, Lohardaga rejecting the accused's prayer to send the dishonoured cheque for examination by a handwriting expert suffered from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶¶22

Court's answer

It is a settled principle of law that expert's evidence as to handwriting or signature is opinion evidence, and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioner received the demand notice issued by the complainant intimating dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the cheque amount, he did not reply to it nor took the plea that he never issued the cheque or did not sign it, and no specific question regarding the same was put in the cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses examined in the case.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The cheque was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in the account and not because of mismatch between the signature appearing on the cheque and the specimen signature.ratio¶¶21
As the SDJM, Lohardaga rejected the petitioner's prayer after forming the opinion that the petition was filed only to prolong the case, the order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi — Cr.M.P. No. 2660 of 2018 — Jauhar Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand & Maqbool Ansari — Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. — 2nd September, 2024 — Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner, accused in Complaint Case no. 214 of 2015 (cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act), sought setting aside of the order dated 11.06.2018 of the learned SDJM, Lohardaga rejecting his petition (filed 20.02.2015) for sending the dishonoured cheque to a handwriting expert, on his claim that the cheque — allegedly lost and misused by the complainant — bore neither his signature nor his handwriting as to amount and date. The SDJM had relied on the coordinate-bench judgment in Dayanand Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2016 3 JLJR 352, observing that no provision in law requires the cheque to be filled up by the drawer himself, and had opined that the petition was filed to prolong the case. The High Court held: (i) expert's evidence as to handwriting or signature is opinion evidence which can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence; (ii) the petitioner, though served with the demand notice, never replied denying issuance or signature and put no specific question on the point in cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses; and (iii) the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, not for mismatch of signature. Finding no illegality in the magistrate's order warranting interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition and vacated the interim order passed earlier.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2660 of 2018

¶2

Jauhar Ansari, S/o Sarwar Ansari, aged about 52 years, R/o village- Bhandara, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandara, Dist. - Lohardaga

¶3

...... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Maqbool Ansari, S/o Late Sahadat Ansari, R/o Village – Bhandara, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandara, Dist.- Lohardaga ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner :Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶10

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by learned SDJM, Lohardaga in Complaint Case no. 214 of 2015 whereby and where under the petition filed by the accused person of the case for sending the cheque for examination by handwriting expert, has been rejected.

¶11

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused person of the said case involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner filed a petition on 20.02.2015 claiming that the dishonoured of cheque does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The amount mentioned therein and the date mentioned in the cheque is also not in handwriting of the petitioner, hence, the cheque be sent to handwriting expert. Leaned SDJM, considering the fact that the cheque was dishonored, not for mismatching of the signature of the drawer of the cheque but for insufficiency of fund in the account and relied upon a judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dayanand Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in

¶12

¶13

Cr.M.P. No. 2660 of 2018

¶14

2016 3 JLJR 352 wherein, it was observed by the co-ordinate Bench that there is no provision in law which prescribes that the cheque shall be filled up by the drawer himself and observed that the petition has been filed to prolong the case and rejected the same.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque, for dishonor of which the complaint case no. 214 of 2015 has been instituted, has never been given by the petitioner to the complainant but same was lost and the same was misused by the complainant, and this case has been instituted. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner will be put to great disadvantage, if cheque is not sent to the handwriting expert, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that it is crystal clear from the complaint itself that even though the petitioner was served with the legal notice, demanding the cheque amount, the petitioner never took the hardship of replying to the said notice that he has not issued the cheque, or he did not put his signature on the cheque nor during the cross-examination of the complainant, such specific question was put to the complainant- who was examined during the trial, as a witness of the case. It is next submitted that had there been any discrepancy in the signature of the petitioner appearing in the cheque and the specimen signature available in the bank, in the cheque return memo, it must have been mentioned by the concerned bank that the cheque was dishonored because of the signature appearing in the cheque, not tallying with the specimen signature of the petitioner available with the bank and having not done so and as the case is basically for dishonor of the cheque because of insufficiency of fund, hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by learned magistrate in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, upon forming an opinion that the

¶17

¶18

Cr.M.P. No. 2660 of 2018

¶19

petition has been filed to prolong the case, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶20

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 expert’s evidence as to handwriting or signature is opinion evidence, and it can rarely, if ever, can take place of substantive evidence.

¶21

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that even though petitioner received the demand notice, issued by the complainant, intimating dishonor of cheque and demanding of the payment of the cheque amount, the petitioner has not replied to the same nor taken the plea that he has never issued the cheque or he did not sign the cheque and no specific question regarding the same has been put in the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant examined in this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2. The cheque is dishonored because of insufficiency of fund in the account and not because of mismatch of signature appearing in the cheque and the specimen signature.

¶22

Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that as the SDJM, Lohardaga has rejected the petition after forming an opinion that the petition was filed only to prolong the case, the same do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶23

In view of the dismissal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the interim order, passed earlier, stands vacated.

¶24

The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶26

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 2^nd September, 2024 Smita /AFR

¶27

¶28

Cr.M.P. No. 2660 of 2018

Jauhar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jauhar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Raj Alias Rahul Raj Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Saiyad Mansoori Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Kumar Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamruddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

R N Singh Alias Ram Nath Singh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Noorjahan Vs the State of Jharkhand