Agnesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and another and order dated

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma along with Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A.

2. This is an application u/s 528 BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the Judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 256 of 2024, Agnesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another and order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 819 of 2022, Devendra Vs. Agnesh, under sections 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station: Kotwali Nagar, District: Bulandshahr..

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with relation to dishonour of two cheques, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in which a summoning order stood passed on 20.04.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an application stood preferred by the applicant for obtaining the expert opinion/report which came to be rejected on 15.05.2023 with an observation that the applicant can adduce evidence at a later stage in the proceedings. Thereafter the applicant preferred another application dated 17.07.2023 for obtaining the expert opinion with relation to the document being the original register and also with an allegation that though the signature of the applicant is on the cheque, but the amount and the words so mentioned has been filled by O.P. No.2, as the cheque happened to be a blank cheque. This application came to be rejected by the court below on 31.05.2024, against which a revision came to be preferred being Criminal Revision No.256 of 2024, which was rejected by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bulandshahar on 15.02.2025.

4. Questioning the order dated 31.05.2024 of the Trial Court and 15.02.2025 of the Revisional Court, present applicant has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that O.P. No.2 happened to be the employee of the applicant-concern and certain cheques were in the possession of O.P. No.2 in the capacity of an employee in the year 2009-2010 and the bank account of the applicant stood closed and stop payment was also made on 22.08.2011, but O.P. No.2 misused the said cheques and thereafter presented the same in the bank and the same was dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the signatures are not dispute, but what is disputed is the fact that the words and figures so mentioned in the cheques have been filled by the O.P. No.2. He further submits that in the application so preferred by him on 17.07.2023, a request was made for expert opinion for verification of the signatures in the original register and other documents in order to show that the opposite party no.2 was misusing the cheque etc. However, the court below has rejected the said application in a cursory manner.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above submission.

7. I have heard submissions made across the Bar and perused the record.

8. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is the extend of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceeding. Section 139 of N.I. Act itself provides for presumption in favour of the holder, according to which it shall be presumed, unless contrary provided that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or a part of any debt or any liability. Apparently, the facts of the case show that post-dishonour of the cheque, a demand notice stood issued, which was replied by the applicant on 27.04.2013, wherein the applicant did not dispute the fact that the cheque was issued and it was his signature. Further, the recital contained in the revisional order with respect to the reply dated 27.04.2013 is being quoted hereinunder: - ""्ቚश्नगत ददोनोሪ चचैक आपकके ममुवकककल कदो एक चचैक मकेरके ममुवकककल अगकेश शमर቞ኋ नके स्वयय भरकर बबिनर तरररीख , व एक चचैक कदो बबिनर भरके व बबिनर तरररीख हस्तर्ቌर करकके मकेरके ममुवकककल अगकेश शमर቞ኋ दररर व्यरपरर सके सम्बिकन቏ኌत सरमरन लरनके हकेतमु आपकके ममुवकककल कदो बदयर" इस ्ቚकरर बियरन ममुकल቎ኌम बदनरयबकत 30.09.2018 तथर नदोबटिस कर ቎ኌवरबि बदनरयबकत -

27.04.2013 मम अबभयमु्ሹ दररर ्ቚश्नगत चचैकदो पर हस्तर्ቌर बकयर ቎ኌरनर स्वरीकरर बकयर गयर हचै"

9. Now a question arises whether the rejection of the application for obtaining handwriting expert's opinion is valid or not. It is apparent from the prayer made in the application dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure-7 at page-53, relevant extract at page-54) that the applicant requested for obtaining of the handwriting expert's opinion in order to substantiate that he is innocent and the cheque has been misused by O.P. No.2, who was an employee and was in possession of the cheque, who inserted figures and words, though signatures are admitted. In the opinion of the Court, the said ground is untenable in the eyes of law, since the signatures on the cheque and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed. Thus presumption under Section 139 is always against the accused and in favour of the holder of the cheque. So far as the contention raised that the cheque has been misused while inserting figures and words, which were in possession of O.P. no.2 as an employee as a matter of defence, which can only be seen in the trial and not at this stage. Thus, this Court does not the present case to be a fit case for interference.

10. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is rejected. However, it is always open for the applicant to take all legal and factual pleas, which are available in law before the court below in the trial which is pending. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma along with Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A.

2. This is an application u/s 528 BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the Judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 256 of 2024, Agnesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another and order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 819 of 2022, Devendra Vs. Agnesh, under sections 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station: Kotwali Nagar, District: Bulandshahr..

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with relation to dishonour of two cheques, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in which a summoning order stood passed on 20.04.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an application stood preferred by the applicant for obtaining the expert opinion/report which came to be rejected on 15.05.2023 with an observation that the applicant can adduce evidence at a later stage in the proceedings. Thereafter the applicant preferred another application dated 17.07.2023 for obtaining the expert opinion with relation to the document being the original register and also with an allegation that though the signature of the applicant is on the cheque, but the amount and the words so mentioned has been filled by O.P. No.2, as the cheque happened to be a blank cheque. This application came to be rejected by the court below on 31.05.2024, against which a revision came to be preferred being Criminal Revision No.256 of 2024, which was rejected by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bulandshahar on 15.02.2025.

4. Questioning the order dated 31.05.2024 of the Trial Court and 15.02.2025 of the Revisional Court, present applicant has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that O.P. No.2 happened to be the employee of the applicant-concern and certain cheques were in the possession of O.P. No.2 in the capacity of an employee in the year 2009-2010 and the bank account of the applicant stood closed and stop payment was also made on 22.08.2011, but O.P. No.2 misused the said cheques and thereafter presented the same in the bank and the same was dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the signatures are not dispute, but what is disputed is the fact that the words and figures so mentioned in the cheques have been filled by the O.P. No.2. He further submits that in the application so preferred by him on 17.07.2023, a request was made for expert opinion for verification of the signatures in the original register and other documents in order to show that the opposite party no.2 was misusing the cheque etc. However, the court below has rejected the said application in a cursory manner.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above submission.

7. I have heard submissions made across the Bar and perused the record.

8. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is the extend of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceeding. Section 139 of N.I. Act itself provides for presumption in favour of the holder, according to which it shall be presumed, unless contrary provided that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or a part of any debt or any liability. Apparently, the facts of the case show that post-dishonour of the cheque, a demand notice stood issued, which was replied by the applicant on 27.04.2013, wherein the applicant did not dispute the fact that the cheque was issued and it was his signature. Further, the recital contained in the revisional order with respect to the reply dated 27.04.2013 is being quoted hereinunder: - ""्ቚश्नगत ददोनोሪ चचैक आपकके ममुवकककल कदो एक चचैक मकेरके ममुवकककल अगकेश शमर቞ኋ नके स्वयय भरकर बबिनर तरररीख , व एक चचैक कदो बबिनर भरके व बबिनर तरररीख हस्तर्ቌर करकके मकेरके ममुवकककल अगकेश शमर቞ኋ दररर व्यरपरर सके सम्बिकन቏ኌत सरमरन लरनके हकेतमु आपकके ममुवकककल कदो बदयर" इस ्ቚकरर बियरन ममुकल቎ኌम बदनरयबकत 30.09.2018 तथर नदोबटिस कर ቎ኌवरबि बदनरयबकत -

27.04.2013 मम अबभयमु्ሹ दररर ्ቚश्नगत चचैकदो पर हस्तर्ቌर बकयर ቎ኌरनर स्वरीकरर बकयर गयर हचै"

9. Now a question arises whether the rejection of the application for obtaining handwriting expert's opinion is valid or not. It is apparent from the prayer made in the application dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure-7 at page-53, relevant extract at page-54) that the applicant requested for obtaining of the handwriting expert's opinion in order to substantiate that he is innocent and the cheque has been misused by O.P. No.2, who was an employee and was in possession of the cheque, who inserted figures and words, though signatures are admitted. In the opinion of the Court, the said ground is untenable in the eyes of law, since the signatures on the cheque and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed. Thus presumption under Section 139 is always against the accused and in favour of the holder of the cheque. So far as the contention raised that the cheque has been misused while inserting figures and words, which were in possession of O.P. no.2 as an employee as a matter of defence, which can only be seen in the trial and not at this stage. Thus, this Court does not the present case to be a fit case for interference.

10. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is rejected. However, it is always open for the applicant to take all legal and factual pleas, which are available in law before the court below in the trial which is pending. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad