REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.    251-252           OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.142-143 of 2019)

RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL  AND OTHERS ETC.                           ...Appellants

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER  ETC.         ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  arise  out  of  the  impugned  judgment  dated

14.12.2018 passed by  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  at  Ahmedabad

dismissing  Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.2735/2017  thereby

declining to quash the FIR No.I-194/2016. By the same order, the

High  Court  has  allowed  Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.24588  of

2017 and quashed the criminal case in C.C.No.367/2016 filed by

appellant  No.3-Hashmukhbhai  Ravjibhai  Patel  against  accused

Yogeshbhai Muljibhai Patel under Section 138 of N.I. Act.  

3. Brief  facts  which  led  to  the  filing  of  these  appeals  are  as

under:-

1

Appellant No.1-Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel is the real brother

of  Yogeshbhai  Muljibhai  Patel  who  is  the  accused  in

C.C.No.367/2016 filed under Section 138 of N.I.  Act by appellant

No.3-Hashmukhbhai  Ravjibhai  Patel.  Both  appellant  No.1-

Rajeshbhai and his brother Yogeshbhai are stated to be residents of

United  Kingdom.  In  this  appeal,  appellant  No.1-Rajeshbhai  is

represented through his Power of Attorney holder-appellant No.2-

Vipulkumar  Hasmukhbhai  Patel.  Respondent-Yogeshbhai  is

represented  through  his  Power  of  Attorney  holder-another

respondent-Mahendrakumar Javaharbhai Patel.  

4. On 08.12.2015, appellant No.3-Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Patel

filed  a  criminal  case  being  C.C.No.367/2016  against  accused

Yogeshbhai under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The father of appellant

No.1-Rajeshbhai  and  Yogeshbhai  had  agricultural  lands  bearing

Block/Survey Nos.534, 536/1/A, 536/1/B, 538, 539, 540, 541/1, 542

and 543 situated at Village Fofaliya, Ta. Dabhoi, District Vadodara.

In  2010,  in  order  to  sell  his  father’s  land,  Yogeshbhai  called  up

appellant No.3 who is also the maternal uncle of Yogeshbhai and

Rajeshbhai. Since appellant No.3 was also planning of buying some

agricultural land from the surplus funds which he has received from

the  sale  of  his  agricultural  land,  he  accepted  the  proposal  of

2

Yogeshbhai. Yogeshbhai who is residing in United Kingdom showed

his intention to come to India for  executing the sale deed of  his

lands in favour of appellant No.3 and asked to pay the money to

respondent  No.2-Mahendrakumar  Javaharbhai  Patel.  Accordingly,

appellant  No.3  gave  Rs.30,00,000/-  each  on  four  days  viz.

21.08.2010,  22.08.2010,  26.08.2010  and  28.08.2010  as  part

payment,  the  total  amounting  to  Rs.1,20,00,000/-  to  respondent

No.2-Mahendrakumar, who issued receipts for the said payments of

amount for and on behalf of accused Yogeshbhai. In 2015, accused

Yogeshbhai  came  to  India  and  arranged  meeting  with  appellant

No.3. In the meeting, Yogeshbhai informed appellant No.3 that he

has already executed a registered Sale Deed No.1229/2013 dated

16.07.2013 in favour of one M/s Brentwood Industries India Pvt. Ltd.

thereby, selling the above referred lands to that company which was

agreed to be sold to appellant No.3.

5. Knowing all  these facts, appellant No.3 demanded his legal

outstanding  debt  from  Yogeshbhai  immediately  i.e.  total  of

Rs.1,20,00,000/- and Yogeshbhai promised to refund the amount by

issuing  four  cheques  each  of  Rs.30,00,000/-  each  in  favour  of

appellant  No.3.  Accordingly,  accused Yogeshbhai issued cheques

bearing Nos.8108 and 8109 of NRO Account No.08540107512 on

3

12.10.2015  and  cheque  Nos.20801  and  20802  of  NRE Account

No.085401000566  on  30.10.2015.  As  per  appellant  No.3,  at  the

time of  issuance of  cheques,  Yogeshbhai  gave assurance of  the

clearance of above cheques.  

6. Two cheques bearing Nos.8108 and 8109 dated 12.10.2015

of  NRO  Account  No.08540107512  amounting  to  Rs.30,00,000/-

each were dishonoured on the same day i.e. on 12.10.2015 on the

ground of “Payment stopped by the Drawer”. The third cheque was

of          NRE Account  No.085401000566 with cheque bearing

No.20801 dated 30.10.2015 amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- and the

fourth  cheque  was  also  of  NRE Account  No.085401000566 with

cheque  bearing  No.20802  dated  30.10.2015  amounting  to

Rs.30,00,000/-. When those two cheques drawn on NRE Account

No.085401000566 were presented before the Bank on the same

day i.e. on 30.10.2015, those cheques were also returned on the

same day with the endorsement “Payment stopped by the Drawer”.

Thereafter,  appellant  No.3  sent  a  legal  notice  to  Yogeshbhai  on

17.11.2015  demanding  payment  of  money  which  notice  was

delivered on 23.11.2015.

7. Insofar as dishonor of cheques bearing Nos.8108 and 8109

dated  12.10.2015  of  NRO  Account  No.08540107512,  they  were

4

returned unpaid on 12.10.2015. The Complainant issued notice on

17.11.2015 and therefore, claim qua the two cheque Nos.8108 and

8109 are  barred by limitation under  the provisions of  Negotiable

Instruments Act. The complaint therefore, pertains only for cheque

Nos.20801 and 20802 of  NRE Account  No.085401000566 which

were returned unpaid on 30.10.2015. Complaint under Section 138

of N.I. Act against Yogeshbhai was taken on file on 05.02.2016 in

C.C.No.367/2016. On 06.09.2016, the Court of 5 th Additional Civil

Judge & JMFC, Bharuch issued a bailable warrant for production of

accused Yogeshbhai.  

8. Appellant  No.3-Hasmukhbhai  has  filed  a  Special  Summary

Suit  No.105/2015 before  the Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,

Vadodara for recovery of Rs.1,20,00,000/- under Order 37 of CPC.

Summary Suit No.105/2015 filed by appellant No.3 was based on

the four receipts issued by respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar.  The

Court  in  that  case has issued summons for  appearance  against

Yogeshbhai  and  Mahendrakumar  which  has  been  served  on

01.11.2015.  According  to  the  respondents,  they  came  to  know

about  those four  receipts  only  after  they have been served with

summons in the said suit. Alleging that the appellants have forged

and fabricated the four receipts,  respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar

5

has  filed  the  complaint  for  cheating  and  forgery  against  the

appellants.  Based on the said complaint,  FIR No.I-194/2016 was

registered  against  the  appellants  under  Sections  406,  420,  465,

467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC. Respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar has

alleged that the appellants joined together and prepared fabricated

receipts of Rs.1,20,00,000/- bearing forged signature of respondent

No.2 and produced these forged receipts as true.  

9. In the FIR, it was averred that Yogeshbhai, who is residing in

United  Kingdom  had  executed  a  power  of  attorney  dated

14.03.2013 in favour  of  Mahendrakumar  for  administration of  his

lands.  On  the  basis  of  this  power  of  attorney,  Mahendrakumar

executed  an  Agreement  to  Sale  in  favour  of  one  Jigneshbhai

Dhanesh  Chandra  Shah  on  16.04.2013.  Thereafter,  Yogeshbhai

came  from  London  and  executed  a  registered  Sale  Deed

No.1229/2013  dated  16.07.2013  in  favour  of  M/s  Brentwood

Industries India Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.6,16,44,000/-. In the sale deed, the

agreement  to  sale  holder  has  signed  as  confirming  party.  In

consideration  of  the  sale  deed,  the  land  owner  was  to  receive

Rs.6,16,44,000/-  and  the  confirming  party-Jigneshbhai  was  to

receive  Rs.1,13,94,000/-.  Yogeshbhai  is  the  elder  brother  of

appellant No.1-Rajeshbhai. Appellant No.1 had filed a Special Civil

6

Suit No.284/2013 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bharuch

claiming his share in the said land sold by Yogeshbhai. In the said

suit,  Yogeshbhai,  his  mother  Kanchanben,  respondent  No.2-

Mahendrakumar  and  Jigneshbhai  were  arraigned  as  defendants.

The  said  suit  was  compromised  between  appellant  No.1  and

Yogeshbhai in London and Yogeshbhai was to pay Rs.90,00,000/-

to Rajeshbhai-appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 agreed to issue NOC

and  promised  that  his  power  of  attorney  holder-appellant  No.2-

Vipulkumar  Hasmukhbhai  Patel  will  issue  NOC.  Accordingly,

Yogeshbhai  had  come  from  London  and  his  power  of  attorney

holder-appellant  No.2-Vipulkumar  had  executed  NOC  letter  in

presence of  Notary  H.J.  Zala  on 23.09.2015.  There was various

correspondence  between  the  parties  and  the  company

M/s Brentwood Industries India Pvt. Ltd. regarding payment of said

Rs.90,00,000/-.  

10. Appellants  No.1  to  3  filed  Criminal  Misc.  Application

No.2735/2017 before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.I-194/2016. Yogeshbhai who is the accused in

the criminal case being C.C.No.367/2016 also filed Criminal Misc.

Application  No.24588/2017  for  quashing  of  cheque  case  filed

against him under Section 138 of N.I. Act.  Yogeshbhai claimed that

7

he  has  given  the  cheques  to  appellant  No.3-Hasmukhbhai  who

approached him requesting for help to purchase land.  Yogeshbhai

alleged  that  the  appellants  have  forged  the  receipts  issued  by

respondent  No.2-Mahendrakumar.  In  this  regard,  Yogeshbhai

placed  reliance  upon  the  report  of  the  hand-writing  expert,

Directorate of Forensic Science dated 15.12.2016 as per which, the

disputed signatures of Mahendrakumar Javaharbhai on the receipts

were  not  written  by  him  i.e.  respondent  No.2-Mahendrakumar

Javaharbhai.

11. Vide  the  impugned  judgment  dated  14.12.2018,  the  High

Court  dismissed  Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.2735/2017  and

declined to quash the FIR No.I-194/2016.  The High Court held that

on the basis of four receipts allegedly issued by Mahendrakumar,

the  third  appellant-Hasmukhbhai  has  filed  the  Summary  Suit

No.105/2015  for  recovery  of  Rs.1,20,00,000/-.  The  High  Court

referred to the hand-writing expert’s opinion who has opined that the

signatures found in the receipts do not tally with the signature of

respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar. The High Court held that looking

into the allegations and the facts, prima facie case of forgery and

cheating  are  made  out  against  the  appellants  and  accordingly,

8

declined to quash the FIR No.I-194/2016 and dismissed Criminal

Misc. Application No.2735/2017.

12. On the basis  of  order  passed in  Criminal  Misc.  Application

No.2735/2017, the Criminal Misc. Application No.24588/2017 filed

by  Yogeshbhai  was  allowed  and  the  criminal  case  in

C.C.No.367/2016  filed  by  appellant  No.3-Hasmukhbhai  under

Section 138 of  N.I.  Act  was quashed.  The High Court  held that

based on the alleged forged receipts, criminal case has been filed

under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act  and  the  cheque  case  cannot  be

proceeded  with  and  accordingly,  quashed  the  criminal  case  in

C.C.No.367/2016  filed  under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act.   Being

aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals.

13. Mr.  D.N.  Parikh,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has

submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the FIR

lodged by respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar is false and frivolous

as the same subject matter is pending consideration in Summary

Suit  No.105/2015.  It  was  submitted  that  at  least  two  cases  viz.

Special  Summary  Suit  No.105/2015  and  criminal  case  in

C.C.No.367/2016 filed under Section 138 of N.I.  Act  are pending

before the competent court and while so, the criminal case could not

have been registered on the four  receipts  which are  the subject

9

matter of the pending litigations between the parties. It was further

submitted  that  in  the  Summary  Suit  No.105/2015,  issue  No.5

framed  by  the  Court  is  “whether  the  defendant  proved  that  the

plaintiff  has  fabricated  the  forged  signature  illegally  and  created

forged receipts” and the FSL report-report of the handwriting expert

is filed in the said suit and the Civil Court is yet to determine the

issue  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  receipts.  Learned  counsel

submitted  that  the  High  Court  has  failed  to  appreciate  that  the

opinion of the handwriting expert is relevant evidence, but it is not a

conclusive  evidence  and  Section  73  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act

empowers the Court to compare the admitted and disputed writings

for the purpose of forming Court’s opinion. It  was contended that

when the genuineness of four receipts is an issue in the civil suit

and the dispute is of civil  nature, the continuation of the criminal

case is an abuse of process of the Court and the             FIR No.I-

194/2016 is liable to be quashed. It  was also contended that the

High Court erred in quashing the cheque case filed under Section

138  of  N.I.  Act  and  the  High  Court  did  not  keep  in  view  that

issuance  of  cheques  by  Yogeshbhai  from his  NRE Account  has

been admitted.

10

14. Refuting the above contentions, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned

Senior  counsel  for  the respondents  has submitted that  appellant

No.3-Hashmukhbhai  is  the  maternal  uncle  of  Yogeshbhai  and

relying  upon  the  words  of  appellant  No.3  and  his  son-appellant

No.2-Vipulkumar,  Yogeshbhai  issued  two  cheques  bearing

Nos.8108 and 8109 for Rs.30,00,000/- each from his NRO Account

and after issuing the cheques, Yogeshbhai realised that there was

no funds in the said account and he asked appellant No.3 to return

the above cheques and collect new cheques of another account. It

was submitted that thereafter Yogeshbhai issued new cheques of

NRE Account bearing Nos.20801 and 20802 of Rs.30,00,000/- each

and at that time, appellant No.3 had told that he had not brought the

old cheques with him and will return the old cheques in a day or two

but never returned the cheques. Learned Senior counsel submitted

that Yogeshbhai got suspicious and on making enquiry, he found

that  appellants  No.2  and  3  were  not  intending  to  purchase  any

lands and thus, he has instructed the Bank to stop payment for all

the four  cheques.  Learned Senior  counsel  further  submitted  that

appellants  made  four  forged  receipts  of  Rs.30,00,000/-  each  by

forging the signatures of respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar and the

handwriting expert opined that four receipts relied upon by appellant

No.3-Hasmukhbhai  have  not  been  signed  by  respondent  No.2-

11

Mahendrakumar and on the basis of FSL report, FIR No.I-194/2016

has been registered under Sections  406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471

and 114 IPC. It was submitted that since there is a prima facie case

of forgery and cheating made out against the appellants, the High

Court  rightly  declined to quash the FIR and the impugned order

warrants no interference.  

15. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused

the impugned order and other materials on record.  

16. The issue relates to the alleged forgery of four receipts dated

21.08.2010,  22.08.2010,  26.08.2010  and  28.08.2010  each  for  a

sum  of  Rs.30,00,000/-  totalling  to  Rs.1,20,00,000/-  issued  by

respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar. For the recovery of the amount

of  Rs.1,20,00,000/-,  appellant  No.3-Hasmukhbhai  filed  Special

Summary  Suit  No.105/2015  in  October,  2015.  After  receiving

summons  in  Summary  Suit  No.105/2015,  respondent  No.2-

Mahendrakumar entered appearance and filed application seeking

leave  to  defend  and  the  said  application  was  allowed  on

19.04.2016. On application filed by appellant No.3-Hasmukhbhai in

the Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts were sent to Forensic

Science Laboratory for obtaining the opinion of handwriting expert.

The  handwriting  expert’s  report  was  received  in  the  Court  on

12

15.12.2016 to the effect that all the four receipts were not signed by

respondent  No.2-Mahendrakumar.  It  was  thereafter  on  the

complaint  filed  by  respondent  No.2,  FIR  No.I-194/2016  dated

28.12.2016 was registered against the appellants for the offences

punishable under Sections  406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114

IPC.  

17. In C.C.No.367/2016, case of appellant No.3-Hasmukhbhai is

that  Yogeshbhai  issued  four  cheques  each  for  a  sum  of

Rs.30,00,000/-, details of which are as under:-

S.No. Date Cheque No.

Account Amount Date of Dishonour

1.   12.10.2015 8108 NRO  Account No.08540107512

Rs.30,00,000/- 12.10.2015

2. 12.10.2015 8109 NRO  Account No.08540107512

Rs.30,00,000/- 12.10.2015

3. 30.10.2015 20801 NRE  Account No.085401000566

Rs.30,00,000/- 30.10.2015

4. 30.10.2015 20802 NRE  Account No.085401000566

Rs.30,00,000/- 30.10.2015

Total Rs.1,20,00,000/-

On  presentation,  the  above  cheques  were  dishonoured  on  the

ground “Payment stopped by the Drawer”.  After  issuing the legal

notice,  appellant  No.3-Hasmukhbhai  filed  criminal  case  in

C.C.No.367/2016 on 08.12.2015 pertaining to two cheques bearing

Nos.20801  and  20802.  It  was  only  thereafter,  respondent  No.2-

Mahendrakumar had filed the criminal complaint dated 20.03.2016

and also filed another criminal complaint dated 14.04.2016 against

13

appellant  No.1-Rajeshbhai  and  appellant  No.2-Vipulkumar.  Since

the police had not registered the FIR, respondent No.2 filed SCRA

No.5945/2016 and SCRA No.6349/2016 before the High Court for

seeking directions for lodging FIR. The High Court vide orders dated

04.10.2016 and 06.09.2016 disposed of those petitions directing the

police to investigate into the matter.

18.  Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015, leave to

defend  was  granted  to  respondent  No.2-Mahendrakumar  on

19.04.2016. On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the said

Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed in the suit were sent

to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has opined that

signatures  in  all  the  four  receipts  did  not  tally  with  the  sample

signatures which were of respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar. It was

only thereafter, complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on

which, FIR No.I-194/2016 was registered on 28.12.2016 against the

appellants  for  the  offences  punishable  under  Sections  406,  420,

465,  467,  468,  471  and  114  IPC.  As  rightly  contended  by  the

learned  counsel  for  the  appellants,  in  the  Summary  Suit

No.105/2015, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether

the  defendant  proved  that  the  plaintiff  has  fabricated  the  forged

signature illegally and created forged receipts”. When the issue as

14

to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the

civil  suit,  in our view, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to

continue as it  would prejudice the interest of  the parties and the

stand taken by them in the civil suit.   

19. It is also to be pointed out that in terms of Section 45 of the

Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of handwriting expert is a relevant

piece of evidence; but it is not a conclusive evidence. It is always

open to the plaintiff-appellant No.3 to adduce appropriate evidence

to  disprove  the  opinion  of  the  handwriting  expert.  That  apart,

Section  73  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act  empowers  the  Court  to

compare  the  admitted  and  disputed  writings  for  the  purpose  of

forming  its  own  opinion.  Based  on  the  sole  opinion  of  the

handwriting expert, the       FIR ought not to have been registered.

Continuation of                         FIR No.I-194/2016, in our view,

would amount to abuse of the process of Court and the petition filed

by  the  appellants  under  Section  482  Crl.P.C.  in  Criminal  Misc.

Application  No.2735/2017  to  quash  the  FIR  I-194/2016  is  to  be

allowed.

20. The High Court,  in our view, erred in quashing the criminal

case  in  C.C.No.367/2016  filed  by  appellant  No.3-Hasmukhbhai

under Section 138 of N.I. Act. As pointed out earlier, Yogeshbhai

15

has admitted the issuance of cheques. When once the issuance of

cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise under

Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is

the complainant-appellant No.3. The nature of presumptions under

Section139  of  the  N.I.  Act  and  Section  118(a)  of  the  Indian

Evidence Act are rebuttable. Yogeshbhai has of course, raised the

defence that there is no illegally enforceable debt and he issued the

cheques to help appellant No.3-Hasmukhbhai for purchase of lands.

The  burden  lies  upon  the  accused  to  rebut  the  presumption  by

adducing evidence. The High Court did not keep in view that until

the accused discharges his burden, the presumption under Section

139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain. It is for Yogeshbhai to adduce

evidence  to  rebut  the  statutory  presumption.  When  disputed

questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after

the parties adduce evidence, the complaint under Section 138 of

the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by

taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though, the Court has the

power to quash the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act on the legal issues like limitation, etc.  Criminal complaint

filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against Yogeshbhai ought not

have been quashed merely on the ground that there are inter se

dispute  between  appellant  No.3  and  respondent  No.2.  Without

16

keeping in view the statutory presumption raised under Section 139

of the N.I. Act, the High Court, in our view, committed a serious error

in quashing the criminal complaint in C.C.No.367/2016 filed under

Section 138 of N.I. Act.

21. In  the  result,  the  impugned  order  is  set  aside  and  these

appeals are allowed. Criminal Misc. Application No.2735/2017 filed

by the appellants is allowed and the FIR No.I-194/2016 is quashed.

Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.24588/2017  filed  by  Yogeshbhai

Muljibhai  Patel stands  dismissed.  Case  filed  by  appellant  No.3-

Hasmukhbhai  Ravjibhai  Patel  under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act  -

C.C.No.367/2016 stands restored. The 5th Additional Civil Judge &

JMFC,  Bharuch  is  directed  to  proceed  with  the  case  in

C.C.No.367/2016  filed  under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act  and  afford

sufficient opportunity to both the parties and dispose the same in

accordance  with  law.  The  Summary  Suit  No.105/2015  shall  be

proceeded in accordance with law without being influenced by any

of the views expressed by the High Court in the impugned order.

..…………………….J.       [R. BANUMATHI]

..…………………….J.        [A.S. BOPANNA]

New Delhi; February 10, 2020.

17