Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Ahad Dar vs Mohammad Sidiq Dar on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.166
Suppl List-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on:24.04.2026
Uploaded on: 29.04.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
CRM(M) No.492/2025
ABDUL AHAD DAR
...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. G. M. Bhat, Advocate.
Vs.
MOHAMMAD SIDIQ DAR ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Umar Rashid Wani, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
1. The petitioner through the medium of present
petition has challenged order dated 14.02.2025 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, whereby his
application seeking forensic examination of writing on the
body of the cheques, which were subject matter of the
complaint, has been rejected.
2. It appears that the respondent-complainant has filed
a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act against the petitioner in respect of dishonour of three
cheques for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh each. It also
Page 1 of 5
appears that trial of the case is almost complete, inasmuch
as evidence of the complainant as well as the evidence of
defence has concluded. It further appears that while the
evidence of the defence was in progress, the
petitioner/accused filed an application before the learned
trial Magistrate seeking a direction that the cheques which
are subject matter of the complaint may be sent for
forensic examination of the writing on the body of the
cheques.
3. In the application, it was submitted by the petitioner
that during his examination under Section 242 of J&K
Cr.P.C, he had made a statement that the cheques in
question were taken by the complainant from him while he
was in police lockup at Police Station, Sumbal. It was
further submitted in the application that in his statement,
while appearing as a defence witness, the petitioner had
stated that though he had signed the cheques, yet the
blanks in the cheques were filled up by Sub-Inspector Mr.
Abdul Ahad, who was posted at Police Station, Sumbal at
the relevant time, while he was in custody. In these
circumstances, the petitioner/accused contends that
forensic examination of the cheques is necessary so as to
ascertain whether the statement made by him is reliable.
Page 2 of 5
4. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and
after analysing the position of law, passed the impugned
order, whereby the application of the petitioner has been
rejected.
5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on
the ground that the learned trial Magistrate has not
applied his mind while passing the impugned order. It has
been submitted that the petitioner was forced to put his
signatures on the cheques while he was in police custody
and the amount in the cheques was filled up by Sub-
Inspector Abdul Ahad of Police Station, Sumbal. It has
been contended that the cheques in question were
managed by the respondent/complainant under coercion
from the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had
instructed his banker to stop the payment. It has been
further contended that in the larger interests of fair trial,
forensic examination of the cheques is necessary.
6. Heard and considered.
7. The settled legal position with regard to negotiable
instruments is that once a cheque has been proved to be
drawn by a drawer in favour of holder of the cheque, the
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act arises in favour of holder of the cheque
Page 3 of 5
and the burden shifts upon the drawer to rebut this
presumption by leading cogent and convincing evidence to
establish that the cheques were not issued voluntarily or
that the same were not issued in discharge of any debt or
liability. Once it is admitted that the cheques were issued
under the signatures of the drawer, it is immaterial as to
who has filled up the amount in the cheques. The Supreme
Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v.
Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714, the
judgment which has been relied upon by the learned trial
court, has clearly held that the fact that the details in the
cheques have been filled up not by the drawer but by some
other person would be immaterial. The Court has further
held that the presumption which arises on signing of the
cheque cannot be rebutted merely by report of a hand
writing expert, even if the details in the cheque have not
been filled up by the drawer but the same have been filled
up by any other person.
8. In the face of the aforesaid settled legal position, the
determination of the question as to who has filled up the
blanks in the cheques, which have, admittedly, been
drawn under the signatures of the petitioner/accused,
would be a superfluous exercise and will not serve any
purpose except delaying the disposal of the complaint. The
Page 4 of 5
defence of the petitioner/accused that the cheques were
drawn by him under coercion in police lockup and even
the blanks were filled up in the said cheques under the
same circumstances, can be proved and established by the
petitioner by producing the witnesses who are acquainted
with these circumstances. The said defence cannot be
proved by subjecting the cheques to forensic examination.
9. For what has been discussed herein above, I do not
find any ground to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the learned trial Magistrate. The petition lacks
merit and is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction
passed by this court on 26.08.2025 shall stand vacated.
10. A copy of this order may be sent to the learned trial
magistrate for information.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
24.04.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the Order is speaking: YES
Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO
Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link
