Rajeev Kumar Jha @ Rajib Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4036 Jhar

                                       1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 3447 of 2021

----

Rajeev Kumar Jha @ Rajib Kumar Jha, aged about 54 years, son of Mohnath Jha, resident of Dangalpara Hizla Road, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.Dumka Town, District Dumka (Jharkhand) ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Mukesh Singh, son of Rambhajo Singh, resident of Hizla Road, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S.Dumka Town, District Dumka (Jharkhand) ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate

----

5/29.09.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

31.3.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.20 of 2019 passed by learned

District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, whereby the order

passed by the learned trial court dated 26.4.2019 in Complaint Case

No.809 of 2017 has been affirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petition was filed before the learned trial court on 15.01.2019 alleged

that the petitioner denied the issuance of the said cheque and the writing

over the said cheque and for that, that petition was filed to send the

cheque in question to the Government authorized Forensic Laboratory for

examination. He submits that by the order dated 26.4.2019 the learned

trial court has rejected the petition which was challenged before the

learned revisional court in Cr.Rev.No.20 of 2019 and the learned

revisional court has also dismissed the revision and affirmed the order

passed by the learned trial court. He submits that the learned trial court

as well as the revisional court have not considered the spirit of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and wrongly has rejected the petition. He

further submits that at the time of defence under section 243 Cr.P.C the

petitioner is having the right to defend himself which has been held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KalyanI Bhaskar v. M.S.

Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2

submits that the petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that

the cheque was not filled up however the signature was not disputed and

he submits that the learned trial court has also taken note of this in the

impugned order dated 26.4.2019. He further submits that the learned

revisional court has relied in the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa,

(2019) 5 SCC 418 13 and has rightly held that the cheque is filled to be

relied upon unless by way of adducing the evidence to rebut the

presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in

discharge of a liability and dismissed the petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that

the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court has rightly

dismissed the petition.

In view of the above facts and the submission of the

learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials

on record and finds that the petition has been filed by the petitioner on

15.01.2019 alleging that writing in cheque is not of the petitioner. In the

said petition it has been stated that the signature of the petitioner on the

cheque is not of the petitioner and the learned trial court has rightly held

that the signature on the cheque has not been disputed. The learned

revisional court relying on the judgment of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar,

2019 (4) SCC 197 has come to the conclusion that presumption under

section 20, 87 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, makes it clear

that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee

remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebute the presumption

that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of

a liability. Thus, when the signature is not disputed, the learned trial

court as well as the learned revisional court have rightly come to that

conclusion, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is on the different footing, in that case, the banker of the appellant

during cross examination deposed that he has not verified the signature

before returning the cheque in question which was dishonoured meaning

would be that has proceeded and in the trial it has come and thereafter

the petition has been filed, nothing is on the record to suggest that the

case of the petitioner is on the same footing in case of KalyanI Bhaskar v.

M.S. Sampoornam(supra). No case of interference is made out.

Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.3447 of 2021 is dismissed.

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/