Forged Signature and Case of Cheque Dishonour under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Forged Signature and Case of Cheque Dishonour under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Acquittal of Accused under NI Act, 1881

In case of Ayush Jain v. State [2019] GCtR 4977 (Delhi) the criminal proceedings under S.138 of NI Act, 1881 were quashed.

It was noted that "the fact remains that as for the signing of Master Facilities Agreement and supplementary agreements, the FSL has opined that the signatures are not of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner filed police complaint as well as complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to lodge FIR against respondent no.2 and same has been lodged vide FIR No.168/2019 dated 02.12.2019. On perusal of the order dated 16.09.2019, whereby the Trial Court directed to register FIR, it is revealed that as per the FSL report, the disputed signatures on the loan documents are different from the specimen signatures of the respondent no.2. Since as per the ATR, respondent no.2 had not signed the loan documents before proposed accused no.2 Mohit Sharma and he had only received the loan documents purportedly signed by the respondent no.2 from another director of the said company i.e. Sanjay Jain and since the loan amount was disbursed to the said company on the basis of those loan documents, the court below is of the view that prima facie, it appears that an offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating has been committed, which is a cognizable offence. High Court must exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when it is convinced from the material on record that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court."

"However, the signature on the resolution passed by the company are forged, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to appoint Mr.Sanjay Jain to issue cheque in question. Since the document itself is forged, therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the petitioner has been looking after day-to-day affairs of the company and is responsible for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. In the present case, the signatures were not of the petitioner and because he had complaints regarding day-to-day business of the company, he resigned from the company on 22.02.2016, which is not in dispute, much prior to cheque issued on 10.11.2016. Thus it will be futile exercise and irreparable loss to the petitioner if this Court directs the petitioner to face the trial."