Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRL.M.C. 1325/2012
Through:
..... Petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
With
+
MANOJ SHARMA
..... Respondent
Nemo.
CRL.M.C. 1326/2012
Through:
..... Petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
..... Respondent
Nemo.
With
+
MANOJ SHARMA
CRL.M.C. 1327/2012
Through:
..... Petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
With
+
MANOJ SHARMA
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012
..... Respondent
Nemo.
CRL.M.C. 1328/2012
..... Petitioner
Page 1 of 6
Through:
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
..... Respondent
Nemo.
With
+
MANOJ SHARMA
CRL.M.C. 1329/2012
Through:
..... Petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
..... Respondent
Nemo.
With
+
MANOJ SHARMA
CRL.M.C. 1330/2012
Through:
..... Petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
..... Respondent
N emo.
With
+
MANOJ SHARMA
CRL.M.C. 1331/2012
Through:
..... Petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012
Page 2 of 6
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
..... Respondent
Nemo.
With
+
CRL.M.C. 1332/2012
MANOJ SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
And
..... Respondent
Nemo.
+
CRL.M.C. 1333/2012
MANOJ SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL
Through:
..... Respondent
Nemo.
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1.
In all these petitions, the petitioner assails the order of learned ASJ
dated 02.04.2012, whereby the criminal revision petitions against the orders
of M.M. dated 11.7.2011 were dismissed. The respondent/complainant had
filed as many as nine complaints against the petitioner under Section 138,
N.I.Act. before the court of M.M. In all those cases, the petitioner, who was
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012
Page 3 of 6
The main plea that has been taken to assail those orders is that the
complainant had filled up the contents of the cheques and the pro-notes
given to the respondent/complainant, who was his partner and that those
were misused by filling up the blanks therein, and thus, he was entitled to
prove the same by way of the opinion of Handwriting Expert.
3.
I have gone through the orders of M.M. dated 11.7.2011 and also the
impugned order.
4.
It is seen that similar pleas were taken before the M.M. as also before
the ASJ.
5.
(2008) 5 SCC 633 on which reliance was placed before the court of ASJ,
that the accused should be given fair trial to lead evidence in his defence,
but, at the same time, it was also held that the court being the master of the
proceedings must determine as to whether the application of the accused in
terms of Section 243 (2) CrPC is bona fide or not or whether thereby
accused intends to bring on record a relevant material. Taking as it is that
the blanks in the cheques and the pro-notes were filled up by the
respondent/complainant, still petitioner was not entitled to prove the same by
way of opinion of Handwriting Expert. In the case of Ravi Chopra Vs.
State and Another, 2008(2) JCC (NI) 169, Delhi, it was held by this Court
after discussing Section 87 and Section 20 of the N.I.Act:
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012
Page 4 of 6
6.
(P) Ltd., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 96 Madras, it was held that to have a validity of
Negotiable Instrument such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law
prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the
signatory to the cheque. A cheque could be filled up by anybody, if it is
signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned
therein.
7.
In view of this dictum and law as laid down in the afore-cited two
judgments, and keeping in view the true spirit of Section 20 and 87 of the
N.I.Act, the proof of filling up of these negotiable instruments by the
respondent or any person, would not be of any relevance. The petitioner has
not disputed his signatures on the said cheques and even in crossexamination, has admitted this fact that the cheques were issued by him and
handed over to the complainant along with the covering letter.
The
Page 5 of 6
against the petitioner. Thus, I do not see any impropriety or illegality in the
orders of the M.M. as also that of the ASJ. The petitions being without any
merit are hereby dismissed in limini.
M.L.MEHTA, J
APRIL 20, 2012
akb
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012
Page 6 of 6