[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baljeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11226 of 2024
BALJEET KAUR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Rajvardhan Singh- Advocate for the appellant/complainant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Heard on : 19.01.2026
Pronounced on : 04.02.2026
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen.
Heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved of the judgment of
acquittal dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Budhar, District Shahdol (M.P.), in Sessions Case No. 38/2019, whereby the
learned Trial Court acquitted respondents No. 2 and 3 of the charges under
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
Sections 420, 467, 468, 465/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Harvansh,
submitted a written complaint at Police Station Budhar stating that he holds
an account with Union Bank, Budhar Branch. It was alleged that on
29.12.2017, accused Amarjeet Singh Chhabra and Romi Singh Chhabra
transferred a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant's account No. 7984
to their State Bank of India, Budhar Branch account No. 32341397829 by
using cheque No. 13116 dated 26.12.2017. It was further alleged that accused
Romi Singh Chhabra forged the signature of the complainant in the cheque
book and withdrew the said amount. Accused Amarjeet Singh Chhabra, in
furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, facilitated the fraudulent transfer of Rs.
2,00,000/- from the complainant's account, thereby committing forgery,
cheating, and using forged documents as genuine..
5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 0022/2018 was
registered at Police Station Budhar against the accused persons for offences
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, and
investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, the alleged
cheque book of Union Bank, Budhar, cheque dated 26.12.2017 for Rs.
2,00,000/-, cheque Nos. 013116 and 026071 of State Bank of India, Budhar,
mail correspondence papers, cheque book receipt, a pen drive, and the cheque
book of Romi Singh's account pertaining to Rs.1,50,000/- were seized.
Further, photocopies of the PAN card of Romi Singh, deposit slips,
photocopies of the State Bank collection register, and other relevant
documents were seized and seizure memos were prepared. After completing
the investigation, recording statements of witnesses, and collecting oral and
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
documentary evidence, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Budhar, District Shahdol (M.P.). As the case was
exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Court of
Sessions, Shahdol, and thereafter transferred to the learned Trial Court for
adjudication..
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the
findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the evidence
available on record, and against the settled principles of law. It is contended
that the complainant categorically deposed that the signature appearing on the
disputed cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not his. The record further
establishes that the forged cheque was utilised by accused No. 3 for
transferring the said amount into his own bank account. Learned counsel
further submits that a cumulative reading of the complaint and the testimony
of PW-1 (Ajeet Singh) clearly establishes the culpability of the accused
persons. However, the Trial Court completely ignored the prosecution
evidence, including the testimony of material witnesses who fully supported
the case of the complainant, and proceeded to acquit the accused without
conducting any independent analysis of the disputed signature or obtaining
the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is further argued that the trial Court
failed to exercise its powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, which empowers the Court to compare disputed signatures with
admitted signatures. Despite a specific request made by the State Examiner
for specimen signatures of the accused, no expert opinion was obtained prior
to the delivery of the judgment. Learned counsel submits that the accused did
not lead any evidence in defence; nevertheless, the trial Court erroneously
extended the benefit of doubt to the accused on unfounded assumptions while
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
ignoring cogent, credible, and reliable evidence on record. It is also submitted
that the accused persons unlawfully changed the complainant's registered
mobile number to their own and obtained the complainant's passbook without
his consent. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted
that the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities, is
unsustainable in law, and is liable to be set aside.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
record.
8. Ajit Singh (PW-1), in his examination-in-chief, deposed that on
08.01.2018 he accompanied his father-in-law, Harvansh Singh, to the Union
Bank branch at Budhar for the purpose of withdrawing money. At the bank,
they came to know that the accused, Amarjeet and Romi, had fraudulently
transferred an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Harvansh Singh's account to the
account of accused Romi maintained at the State Bank of India, Budhar
Branch, without the knowledge or consent of Harvansh Singh.Thereafter,
Harvansh Singh insisted on proceeding to the Police Station, Budhar, where
PW-1 drafted and submitted a written complaint alleging that Amarjeet and
Romi had fraudulently transferred and withdrawn the said amount. On the
basis of the complaint, a police report was registered. On the following day,
Ajit Singh and Harvansh Singh again visited the Union Bank branch, where
they discovered that the accused Amarjeet and Romi had changed the
registered mobile number linked to Harvansh Singh's bank account to their
own mobile number, thereby enabling them to receive transaction alerts. They
further came to know that the accused had obtained a cheque book from the
bank by forging the signature of Harvansh Singh. Later that evening, a bank
official from Union Bank informed Harvansh Singh that the Branch Manager
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
required his presence at the bank. Upon reaching the bank, the Branch
Manager prepared an application in the English language and assured
Harvansh Singh, who was illiterate in English, that the application pertained
only to a bank-related matter and required his signature. Relying on this
assurance, Harvansh Singh affixed his signature on the said application.
Subsequently, it was revealed that the application was meant for depositing
the cheque book and that the accused Amarjeet and Romi had forged the
signature of Harvansh Singh on the said document. It is further borne out
from the record that Harvansh Singh expired on 22.10.2020 and, therefore,
could not be examined before the Trial Court. Upon a holistic appreciation of
the testimony of PW-1, it is evident that the primary account holder,
Harvansh Singh, having since deceased, was unavailable to offer direct
evidence before the Court.
9. Rajeev Kumar (PW-2) deposed that on 09.01.2018, he was posted
as the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Budhar Branch. On that
date, he received a letter from Budhar Police Station bearing his signatures.
He stated that the police seized from the State Bank of India, Budhar, one pen
drive containing CCTV footage showing Romi Singh withdrawing an amount
of ₹1,50,000/-; the original cheque issued by Romi Singh for ₹1,50,000/-; a
photocopy of Romi Singh's PAN card; the original deposit slip evidencing
the deposit of ₹2,00,000/- by Romi Singh in Union Bank, Budhar; and a
photocopy of the local collection register of the State Bank of India pertaining
to the said transaction, as recorded in the seizure memo (Exhibit P/4). He
further stated that he was shown the CCTV footage of the State Bank of
India, Budhar, recorded at the relevant time. Upon viewing the footage, he
confirmed that it depicts the accused at about 10:54 a.m. on 03.01.2018. He
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
also stated that the documents produced from the State Bank of India bear the
signatures of Romi Singh on the reverse side, acknowledging receipt of the
payment, and that the corresponding transaction is duly reflected in the
CCTV footage.
10. Sukhram (PW-3) stated that he had no knowledge of the incident in
question. He deposed that approximately five or six years prior, he had
delivered postal mail to the house of the accused, Amarjeet Singh. On that
occasion, he delivered a plain registered envelope to a minor boy at the
accused's house, who signed the postal receipt, which PW-3 thereafter
submitted to the post office. He further stated that he did not recollect
whether the envelope sent by speed post on 24.07.2017 was addressed to
Harvansh Singh. However, he admitted that the son of Harvansh Singh had
received the envelope and had signed the receipt. In view of his testimony,
the prosecution declared the witness hostile.
11. Rahul Kamalkar (PW-4) deposed that he was posted as Assistant
Manager at Union Bank of India, Budhar Branch, on 01.02.2018. He stated
that a fraud had occurred during that period, wherein Amarjeet, the son of
Harvansh Singh, had withdrawn money from the account of Harvansh Singh.
In connection with the said incident, the police visited the bank and seized
cheques and documents pertaining to Harvansh Singh Chawda. He further
testified that the police seized a mail-correspondent cheque book belonging to
Harvansh Singh Chawda, resident of Budhar, bearing cheque book numbers
10013101 to 10013120, issued in the name of Harvansh Singh. The said
cheque book was verified by Avinash Dubey, the then Branch Manager, in
his presence. The seizure memo relating thereto is Exhibit P/7. As Avinash
Dubey has since expired, the witness identified and recognized his signatures
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
on the basis of having worked with him. He further stated that the police
seized the following documents from him:
(i) Union Bank cheque bearing No. 10013116, issued in the name of
Romi Singh, signed by Harvansh Singh, for an amount of
₹2,00,000/-;
(ii) State Bank of India, Budhar, schedule letter along with cheque
Nos. 013116 and 026071 (one copy); and
(iii) an application for cancellation of the cheque book, purportedly
signed by Harvansh Singh (one copy).
The seizure memo in respect of these documents is Exhibit P/8. He further
deposed that after the incident, the then Branch Manager, Avinash Dubey,
sent letters dated 11.01.2018, 18.01.2018, and 21.01.2018 through mail to
Rewa and to the Union Bank of India Head Office, Mumbai, Cheque Book
Department, seeking information regarding cheque book No. 10013101 to
10013120 and account No. 326902010007984 belonging to Harvansh Singh.
The said letters are collectively marked as Exhibit P-9. In paragraph 6 of his
cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant, Harvansh Singh, did not
submit any application regarding the alleged tearing of the cheque directly to
him, but to the Branch Manager. He further admitted that he had no
knowledge as to whether the said application was made orally or in writing,
or whether any written application was submitted at all. He also admitted that
had such an application been submitted to the Branch Manager, the police
would have seized the same from the branch office. He conceded that no such
complaint application addressed to the Bank Manager was seized by the
police. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused,
Amarjeet Singh, had sought records relating to the issuance and delivery of
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
the disputed cheque book, along with the postal receipt, from Union Bank of
India, Budhar Branch, under the Right to Information Act. Pursuant thereto,
the Public Information Officer, Union Bank Regional Office, Rewa, issued a
registered reply dated 27.02.2023, stating that the disputed cheque book had
been issued to Harvansh Singh in the year 2017 and was delivered to the
account holder through registered post. In paragraph 9 of his cross-
examination, he admitted that when a cheque is deposited in the bank, the
cheque amount is credited to the account holder only after the signature on
the deposited cheque is verified and matched with the specimen signature
available on record.
12. Moolchand (PW-5) deposed that he was employed as a daily-wage
worker at the State Bank of India, Budhar Branch. He stated that the incident
in question occurred in the year 2018, when Rajiv Khanger was posted as the
Branch Manager. He further testified that the Branch Manager handed over a
deposit slip, a cheque, and a pen drive to the police, which were seized and a
seizure memo (Ex. P-4) was prepared. Moolchand admitted that on
10.01.2018, the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Budhar Branch,
issued cheque No. 920529 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of Romi
Singh, credited to Account No. 32341397829. He further confirmed that the
following articles were seized in his presence: the original deposit slip
pertaining to cheque No. 920529 for Rs. 1,50,000/- relating to Account No.
32341397829; a photocopy of the PAN card of Romi Singh; the deposit slip
of Romi Singh for Rs. 2,00,000/- issued by Union Bank, Budhar (original and
photocopy); and a State Bank collection slip (original and photocopy). In his
cross-examination (paragraph 5), he admitted that he had no personal
knowledge of the records handed over by Rajiv Khanger to the police. He
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
further conceded that he had signed seizure memo Ex. P-4 at the instance of
Rajiv Khanger.
13. Anand Patel (PW-6) stated that he was posted at the Union Bank of
India, Budhar Branch, from September 2018 to 2019. He admitted that, in his
presence, the police seized the following articles from the Bank Manager,
Avinash Kumar Dubey:
(i) Union Bank cheque No. 10013116, signed in the name of Romi Singh;
(ii) original documents dated 26.12.2017 pertaining to an amount of
₹2,00,000, drawn in the name of Harvansh Singh;
(iii) the schedule letter of the State Bank of India; and
(iv) an application for cancellation of the cheque book in the name of
Harvansh Singh. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
14. B.N. Prajapati (PW-7) deposed that on 09.01.2018 he was posted as
Sub-Inspector at Police Station Budhar. He stated that on 08.01.2018 the
complainant, Harvansh Singh, submitted a written application (Ex. P-10) to
the Station House Officer alleging fraudulent withdrawal of money from his
bank account. The then Station House Officer, Praful Rai, endorsed the said
application and entrusted the investigation to the witness on 09.01.2018.
Pursuant to the complaint, the Investigating Officer issued a letter (Ex. P-11)
to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Budhar Branch, seeking details
regarding the fraudulent transaction and requesting original documents
related to the withdrawal. On the same date, another letter (Ex. P-3) was
issued to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Budhar Branch, bearing
the signature of the then Station House Officer. This witness further stated
that a pen drive containing CCTV footage dated 03.01.2018 was obtained
from Rajiv Kumar Khenger, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Budhar
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
Branch. The CCTV footage showed Romi Singh withdrawing an amount of
Rs. 1,50,000/- from the bank. In addition, the following articles were seized
from Rajiv Kumar Khenger:
(I) one Moser Wear Company pen drive (white and red in colour);
cheque No. 920529 pertaining to Romi Singh's account No. 32341397829,
reflecting withdrawal of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 03.01.2018;
(ii) Original PAN card of Romi Singh; a photocopy of the deposit slip
of Romi Singh for Rs. 2,00,000/- of Union Bank of India, Budhar Branch
(original deposited on 26.12.2017); and
(iii) a photocopy of the State Bank of India public clearance. All the said
articles were seized in the presence of witnesses, and a seizure memo (Ex.
P-4) was duly prepared. He further deposed that during the course of
investigation on 09.01.2018, the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India,
Budhar Branch, Avinash Kumar Dubey, produced certain documents, which
were seized in the presence of witnesses and documented through a seizure
memo (Ex. P-8). These documents included: cheque No. 10013116 drawn on
Union Bank of India, Budhar Branch, in favour of Romi Singh and bearing
the signature of Harvansh Singh (original dated 26.12.2017 for an amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/-); a State Bank of India, Budhar Branch schedule letter;
photocopies of cheques Nos. 013116 and 026071; and an application for
cancellation of cheque book signed by Harvansh Singh dated 08.01.2018.
This witness also stated that he recorded statements under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure from the complainant Harvansh Singh Chavda,
witnesses Rajiv Kumar Khenger and Avinash Kumar Dubey, and postman
Sukhram Prajapati. He further obtained a photocopy of the delivery slip from
Sukhram Prajapati, which was marked as Ex. P-13.
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
15. Upon analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
evident that Harvansh Singh was not examined before the Court due to his
demise. In the absence of his testimony, it cannot be conclusively established
that the signature appearing on the disputed cheque is that of Harvansh Singh.
The testimony of Rahul (PW-4) further establishes that when a cheque is
deposited in a bank, the amount is credited to the account holder only after
the signature on the cheque is verified with the specimen signature available
on record. Significantly, the prosecution has failed to produce the report of
the State Examiner of Disputed Documents, which is crucial for conclusively
determining whether the signature on the disputed cheque is genuine or
forged. Furthermore, a perusal of the testimony of Ajeet Singh (PW-1)
reveals that he and the accused persons are involved in an ongoing dispute
concerning the property of the deceased Harvansh Singh. Consequently,
Ajeet Singh has a clear motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.
16. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of Sukhram that on 24.07.2017,
an envelope addressed to Harvansh Singh was received; however, he was
unaware of the contents of the envelope. As per the applicable regulations,
registered mail is required to be delivered only to the person in whose name it
is addressed. It is further evident from the evidence on record that no delivery
receipt or acknowledgment has been seized to establish that the said mail was
delivered to the accused Amarjeet Singh. Moreover, the testimony of this
witness does not disclose to whom the alleged mail was actually handed over.
The prosecution has also failed to establish that Harvansh Singh had
submitted any application to the bank alleging that his cheque book was being
misused by another person or requesting stoppage of withdrawal.
17. With regard to the allegation of a forged signature on the cheque,
Cr.A. 11226- 2024
the opinion of the Assistant State Examiner of Questioned Documents
(Exhibit P-18) does not contain any conclusive opinion regarding the disputed
documents. Thus, the prosecution has completely failed to prove, through
expert evidence, that the alleged cheque was forged by accused Romi or
Amarjeet Singh, or that the signature on the cheque was not that of Harvansh
Singh.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings and upon re-
appreciation of the evidence available on record, we are of the considered
view that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid
charge. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment; consequently, the
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
rao
SATYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
2.5.4.20=fd8212036fdbf89fa7ca6dd1d45561a78
03f38162f693a3cbabf7e416131fa7f, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR,CID -
SAI RAO
7050389, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=d71b7c71d530e3c544e8ebf848d
8818167becb37eb09e44776d0667970eed1e9,
cn=SATYA SAI RAO
Date: 2026.02.05 12:17:25 +05'30'
