Defence Of Coercion In Issuance Of Cheque Cannot Be Proved Through Forensic Exam; Must Be Established By Witnesses: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate rejecting an application seeking forensic examination of writings on the body of cheques forming the subject matter of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed: “… The defence of the petitioner/accused that the cheques were drawn by him under coercion in the 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”.

The respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of three cheques of ₹1 lakh each issued by the petitioner.

During the trial, after both the prosecution and the defence had presented their evidence, the petitioner made an application seeking a forensic examination of the writing on the cheques.

It was the case of the petitioner that the cheques had been forcibly obtained from him while he was in police custody, and that although he had signed the cheques, the blanks were filled up by a police officer.

The trial court rejected the application, holding that such examination was unnecessary, leading to the present petition.

The Court examined the legal position governing negotiable instruments and reiterated that once the issuance of a cheque bearing the signature of the drawer is admitted, a presumption arises under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the holder.

It was observed that the burden then shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption by leading cogent and convincing evidence demonstrating that the cheque was not issued voluntarily or was not in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari (2022), the Court noted that even if the details in the cheque are filled by a person other than the drawer, it would not affect the validity of the cheque nor rebut the statutory presumption.

In this context, the Court observed that “the presumption which arises on signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by report of a handwriting expert.”

The Court further held that determining who filled up the blanks in the cheque would be a “superfluous exercise” that would not serve any meaningful purpose in adjudicating the dispute and would only delay the trial.

Addressing the specific defence raised by the petitioner, the Court held that allegations of coercion or duress in obtaining signatures are matters of fact that must be proved through oral and documentary evidence, including testimony of witnesses acquainted with the circumstances.

It emphasised that forensic examination cannot establish the circumstances under which the cheque was signed or issued, and therefore cannot be relied upon to prove such a defence.

The Court also noted that the application for forensic examination was filed at an advanced stage of trial, when evidence had already been concluded, indicating that the request was likely to delay the proceedings.

The Court held that the trial court had rightly rejected the application for forensic examination, as the same was unnecessary and would not aid in establishing the defence raised by the petitioner.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the same and upheld the impugned order, while vacating the interim directions earlier granted.

Case Title: Abdul Ahad Dar v. Mohammad Sidiq Dar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

Petitioner: G.M. Bhat, Advocate

Respondent: Umar Rashid Wani, Advocate

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment