Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a forgery FIR founded on a handwriting opinion concerning receipts already in issue in a pending recovery suit, while restoring a separate cheque-dishonour complaint. The expert opinion was relevant but not conclusive, and continuation of that FIR was abusive in the circumstances. Admitted issuance of the cheques attracted the rebuttable statutory presumption; disputed debt and receipt questions required evidence rather than quashing of the cheque case.
Issues
- Whether the particular forgery FIR based on the handwriting opinion should continue while genuineness of the receipts awaited civil adjudication.
- Whether the cheque complaint could be quashed despite admitted issuance and disputed factual defences.
Held
- Genuineness of the receipts was expressly in issue in the pending summary suit. On this record continuation of the later FIR, based solely on the expert opinion obtained in that suit, would prejudice the parties and abuse the process. The opinion was not conclusive and could be met by other evidence; the civil court could also compare the writings under Section 73. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Admitted or established issuance of cheques attracted the Section 139 presumption. The accused’s contention that the cheques were only to assist a land purchase and represented no enforceable debt required rebuttal through evidence; an inter se dispute did not by itself justify quashing. (¶ 20)
- Section 482 can address legal defects such as limitation in a cheque complaint, but the disputed facts here required adjudication after both sides had an opportunity to lead evidence. The restored complaint concerned the two NRE-account cheques, not the earlier two cheques affected by the notice limitation. (¶¶ 7, 17, 20, 21)
Result
Appeals allowed and impugned order set aside. FIR I-194/2016 quashed; Section 138 complaint CC 367/2016 restored for lawful disposal after sufficient opportunity to both sides. Summary Suit 105/2015 to proceed independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s views.