Allowed

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Ramesh Chandra

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2017CRLR/24/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed criminal revisions filed by a banking company. The court set aside impugned orders that mandated the disputed cheques be sent for handwriting comparison. Relying on precedents regarding blank material in post-dated cheques, the court held that sending cheques for expert examination was not justified.

What did the court decide?

The revisions were allowed and the rejected orders directing the cheques to be sent for handwriting comparison were set aside.

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Ramesh Chandra — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 3 / 2017

¶3

Indusind Bank Ltd. Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Shailendra Singh, Branch Office, Aaradhana Hotel Campus, in Front of Sanwaliya Ji Hospital, Chittorgarh, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ramesh Chandra Mali S/o Shri Radha Kishan Mali, R/o House No.268, Station Road, Moti Bazar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

¶7

----Respondent Connected With

¶8

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 24 / 2017

¶9

Indusind Bank Ltd. Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Shailendra Singh, Branch Office, Aaradhana Hotel Campus, in Front of Sanwaliya Ji Hospital, Chittorgarh, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh.

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Ramesh Chandra Mali S/o Shri Radha Kishan Mali, R/o House No.268, Station Road, Moti Bazar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Mehlana

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Dadhich

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment / Order

24/08/2017

(2 of 4)

Heard.

These two revisions are directed against the order dated 15.9.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh whereby two separate revisions filed by the respondents accused were accepted and the orders dated 1.7.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases) Chittorgarh in cases no. in Case no. 2078/2015 and 2147/2015 respectively were set aside. The Revisional Court, while accepting the revision directed that the disputed cheques no.021212( Case no. 2078/2015) and 027455 ( Case no. 2147/2015) for the bouncing whereof the two complaints had been filed by the petitioner be sent to handwriting expert for comparison of the writings scribed thereupon.

¶21

Since these revisions involve common question of law, they are being decided by a single order.

¶22

The petitioner herein is the complainant in both the cases pending in the trial court. The trials had reached to the final stages and defence evidence had been recorded. Thereafter, the accused respondent filed applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act in both the cases praying that the handwritings on the disputed cheques (other than the signatures of the accused which were admitted by him) be examined through the handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The trial court rejected the applications filed in both the cases by orders dated 1.7.2016 whereafter the respondent accused preferred separate revisions which were allowed by the Revisional Court by

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

orders dated 15.9.2016 which are under challenge in these two revisions.

¶25

Learned counsel Mr. Mehlana representing the petitioner places reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Suman Gupta Vs. Narendra Kumar Sharma reported in 2010 LawSuit (Raj.)-909 and Vishnu Kumar Vs. Sita Ram reported in 2010 LawSuit(Raj.)-1625 and urges that in the light of these decisions, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the revisions deserve acceptance.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

I have appreciated the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned orders as well as the decisions cited at bar.

¶28

This Court, in the above referred judgments has categorically held that the holder of a cheque in due course has a right to fill in the blanks existing in the signed post dated cheques provided by the account holder and as such, even if it is assumed for a moment that blanks were filled by complainant then also there is no reason to require examination of the cheques by the handwriting expert. There may be cases where the holder of the cheque in due course acts smartly and while signing in cheques, gets the blanks filled-up by somebody-else. In these circumstances if any adverse inference is drawn from the fact that the blank spaces in the cheque were filled by some person other than the payee then the complainant despite being the holder of

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

the cheque in due course be left in an indefensible situation. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the Revisional Court was not justified in directing that the cheques in question should

¶31

be sent for comparison of the inscriptions made therein by the handwriting expert.

¶32

Consequently, the revisions are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.9.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge no. 3 Chittorgarh in both the cases are hereby set aside.

¶33

A copy of the order be placed in each file.

¶34

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶35

/sushil/

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Ramesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Ramesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Global Services Vs Central State Farms,Suratgarh and Ors.

Shakti Singh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Laxman Singh and Anr. Vs State

Rajendra Pareek Vs Mangesh

Badridas Suthar Vs Babulal Sharma Bank Vale and Anr.

Badridas Vs Babulal @ Bank Vale and Anr.