Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neera Bhatnagar vs Veerendra Pahadia on 1 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C. No.40342/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1st OF AUGUST, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 40342 of 2023
NEERA BHATNAGAR
Versus
VEERENDRA PAHADIA
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Mishra - Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Gaurav Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking following relief:-
It is therefore, most humbly prayed that in the
interest of justice the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
call for the record of the matter and after
examining the same be pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 16.08.23 (Ann.
P/1) passed by the 12th ASJ, Bhopal.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant was
tried for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
and she has been convicted by the Trial Court. Against the judgment
and sentence passed by the Trial Court, applicant has preferred an
Appeal. In the Appeal, she filed an application under Section 91 of
Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the concerning Bank to produce the entire
record pertaining to the account and specimen signature of the applicant
because it was her case that the cheque was issued by forging her
signature. By the impugned order, said application has been rejected.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted
by counsel for the applicant that although the applicant always sign in
English but the cheque in question bears a different signature and the
Bank instead of returning the cheque on the ground of different
signatures, returned the cheque on the ground of insufficiency of funds.
If the cheque does not bear the signature of holder of the account, then it
would be clear that it is not a valid document and no offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would be made.
4. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
respondent. It is submitted that similar applications were filed by the
applicant before the Trial Court and the said applications were rejected
by the Trial Court by orders dated 07/02/2010 and 05/01/2022. Against
the said orders, Revisions filed by the applicant were also dismissed by
the Revisional Court and therefore, now the applicant cannot maintain
the similar application at the Appellate stage.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by counsel
for the applicant that the applicant did not send a reply to the statutory
notice sent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is
submitted that although it was the stand of the applicant that she never
received the notice issued under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act but the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the receipt of said
notice was refused by the applicant.
7. Counsel for the applicant is incorrect to say that in case if there is
a difference in signatures, then the said cheque will not be a valid
negotiable instrument. Furthermore, difference in signature will also
make out an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion
that no jurisdictional error was committed by the Appellate Court by
rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of
Cr.P.C. specifically when her similar applications were rejected by the
Trial Court and Revisions were also dismissed by the Sessions Court.
9. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Interim order dated 16/01/2024 is hereby vacated.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
S.M.
