Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Kushwah vs Anoop Agrawal on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30627
1 MCRC-37530-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 26th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37530 of 2022
DINESH KUSHWAH
Versus
ANOOP AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Devraj Dixit - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. seeking the following relief:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the present petition by setting aside the
order impugned dated 11.06.2022 passed by Judical Magistrate
First Class, Vidisha (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.SCNIA-208/2017
and be further pleased to allow the application preferred under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, in the interest of
justice."
2. The facts of the case are that, the respondent filed a private
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
petitioner for dishonour of cheque of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Cheque was of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30627
2 MCRC-37530-2022
Allahabad Bank, Branch Vidisha dated 22.02.2017.
3. It is the contetion of the petitioner that the cheque does not bear his
signature and the handwriting of the cheque also is not of the petitioner.
Then it is necessary to call the concerned bank Manager or official along
with the record of the account of the petitioner to show that the signature on
the cheque in question is not of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the
cheque in question has wrongly been dishonoured on account of "insufficient
funds". In fact, the signature on the cheque differs and therefore, it was
necessary to call the concerned bank Manager or official along with the
record of the account of the petitioner so as to put forth the proper defence in
the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. In reply to the petition, the counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the trial Court, considering all the facts, has concluded that the
order in lieu that the cheque was dishonoured due to "insufficent fund" and
not the specimen signature was different. Therefore, the trial Court has
dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The revision filed by the
petitioner has also been dismissed in view of the same ground. In support his
contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this High
Court in the case of Sadhna Pandey Vs. P.C. Jain reported in 2014 Legal
Eagle (MP) 2974 has submitted in paragraph 5 of the judgment that, "........
The impugned complaint was filed by the respondent only on the ground of
dishonouring the cheque on account of insufficiency of funds and not on the
ground of difference of signature of the applicant. As such the grounds
which are not the subject matter of the case could not be permitted to raise in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30627
3 MCRC-37530-2022
the defence. In the case at hand when the banker of the petitioner itself has
not dishonoured the cheque on the ground of difference of the signature, then
the petitioner/accused could not take such defence. The applicant has only
the right to defend the case on the ground of insufficiency of funds and rebut
the evidence of the respondent adduced on such count. He also submitted
various citations in support of his contention.
5. In view of the facts as stated above, the cheque bounced was not on
the specimen signature of the petitioner, which did not tally with the
specimen signature of the petitioner kept with the Bank, but on account of
insufficient funds.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any merits in
this petition filed under Section 482 of M.Cr.C. Consequently, by affirming
the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vidisha, there is
no need to call the bank Manager or official of the concerned Bank to verify
the validity of the cheque. These are the delaying tactics.
Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
mani
