Dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the “signatures do not match” or that the “image is not found”, which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act.”

Citation

CDJ 2012 SC 827

Laxmi Dyechem vs State of Gujarat

Head Note

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Signature differs - Dishonour of chques - Quashing of complaint not proper. Allegations of fraud and the like are matters that cannot be investigated by a Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall have to be left to be determined at the trial after the evidence is adduced by the parties.Thus although a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may not be entertained by the High Court for quashing such proceedings, yet the judicious use of discretion by the trial judge whether to proceed in the matter or not would be enormous in view of Section 139 of the NI Act and if the drawer of the cheque discharges the burden even at the stage of enquiry that he had bona fide reasons to stop the payment and not make the said payment even within the statutory time of 15 days provided under the NI Act, the trial court might be justified in refusing to issue summons to the drawer of the cheque by holding that ingredients to constitute offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing where the account holder has sufficient funds to discharge the debt. Thus the category of stop payment cheques would be a category which is subject to rebuttal and hence would be an offence only if the drawer of the cheque fails to discharge the burden of rebuttal.

Cases Referred:
M.M.T.C. Ltd. And Anr vs. Medchl Chemical and Pharma (P) Ltd. And Anr. [(2002) 1 SCC 234]
Goaplast (P) Ltd. vs. Chico Ursula D?Souza And Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 232 = (2004) Crl.L.J. 664]
Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441]
Vinod Tanna & Anr. v. Zaher Siddiqui & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 541
Mustafa Surka v. M/s. Jay Ambe Enterprise & Anr. [2010 (1) Bombay Cases Reporter (Crl.) 758]
NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 253
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1965 SC 871),
Swantraj v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 3 SCC 322
State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami (1975) 4 SCC 745
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949 2 All E.R. 155)
Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249
Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 739
K.K Sidharthan v. T.P. Praveena Chandran (1996) 6 SCC 369
National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 330
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89

Comparative Citations:
2012 (6) CTC 690, 2013 (1) KLT 167, 2013 (1) KLJ 441, 2012 (3) MWN(Cr) DCC 145, 2013 (1) MLJ(Crl) 336, 2012 (195) DLT 111, 2012 (4) CCR 683, 2012 (9) SLT 54, 2013 (1) Crimes 101, 2013 (3) SCJ 258, 2013 (1) BCR 813, 2013 (1) BCR(Cri) 456, 2013 AIR(SCW) 3468, 2013 CrLJ 3288, 2013 (2) ALD(Cri) 823, 2013 (4) KCCR 307 (SN), 2013 (4) AIR(Bom) R 956, 2014 ALL MR (CRI) 721, 2012 (13) SCC 375,