The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a recent judgment, has ruled that sending a cheque for expert opinion on its contents is not useful when the issuer admits to signing the cheque. Justice Shamim Ahmed dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court’s order that had rejected a plea for handwriting analysis in a cheque bounce case. The court affirmed that a signed blank cheque, if voluntarily presented, authorizes the payee to fill in the details, and the onus remains on the accused to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court through a criminal revision petition filed by A. Mani against an order dated July 3, 2025, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Palani. The trial court had dismissed Mr. Mani’s petition (Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023) filed in a pending case (S.T.C.No.38 of 2023). In that petition, Mr. Mani had requested that the disputed cheque and a bank challan be referred to a handwriting expert for an opinion. Aggrieved by the dismissal, he approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions:
Mr. C. Jeyaprakash, counsel for the petitioner A. Mani, argued that the cheque in question was not filled by his client. He contended that a signed blank cheque was given as security to the father of the respondent, S. Natarajan. It was alleged that despite repayment, the cheque was not returned. After the demise of the respondent’s father, the respondent allegedly filled in the details on the blank cheque and misused it. The petitioner admitted during cross-examination that while he had filled the bank challan, he had not filled the contents of the cheque. The petitioner claimed that the handwriting on the cheque belonged to the respondent, who had deposed false evidence before the trial court.
Respondent’s Submissions:
Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandiayan, representing the respondent S. Natarajan, countered that the trial court’s order was passed after due consideration of all facts and circumstances. He argued that the order suffered from no “illegality, impropriety, or perversity” and did not warrant interference from the High Court. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner had not denied his signature on the cheque, and the contention that it was issued for security was not a plausible ground for appointing a handwriting expert.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After considering the submissions and perusing the record, Justice Shamim Ahmed found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order. The court noted that the petitioner had not been able to “point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order.”
The judgment heavily relied on established precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The court cited the decision in Purushottam Versus Manohar K. Deshmukh and another, which held that handing over a duly signed blank cheque implies giving authority to the holder to “put a date of his choice and to present the same for encashment.” The court observed that a cheque “does not loose its sanctity merely due to the fact that the same has been filled in by some other person.”
Further, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar (2019), which clarified the law on signed blank cheques. The Supreme Court had held that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented towards payment, the “payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, that itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove the cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence.”
The court also cited Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010), where the apex court held that “once the accused admits his signature in the cheque, then the presumption comes into play in favour of the complainant.”
Applying these legal principles to the present case, Justice Ahmed observed that there was no denial of the issuance of the cheque or the petitioner’s signature on it. The judgment stated, “there is no foundation laid by the petitioner’s counsel to say that the cheque was stolen or signature was forged by the complainant. Thus, the question of referring the cheque to the Expert for getting opinion on the contents of the cheque other than the signature is not useful to the Petitioner.”
Concluding that the petition was “devoid of merits,” the court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, thereby upholding the trial court’s decision.
