Bombay High Court

AVINASH RAJARAM KALOKHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 17 June 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: MADHAV JAMDAR

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed; the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class is not quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, Avinash Rajaram Kalokhe, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 10 March 2025 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khed, which authorized the issuance of process against him. The petitioner alleged that the respondent altered the date on a cheque without his consent, changing it from 21 June 2023 to 21 September 2023, and sought to have the order quashed. The respondent contended that the petitioner himself changed the date and counter‑signed the cheque, and produced a photocopy showing identical signatures. The court examined the signatures and found them prima facie to be of the same person, noting that the issue of alleged forgery should be decided at trial. Consequently, the court held that there was no ground for interference under Article 227 and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class issuing process can be quashed on the ground of alleged alteration of a cheque without consent.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order at the pre‑trial stage under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the signatures on the cheque and its counter‑signature are identical, thereby negating the petitioner's claim of forgery.

Subjects

Article 227
writ petition
cheque alteration
forgery
criminal procedure
pre‑trial jurisdiction
high court

Judgment

                                               920-CRI.WP-2681-2025.DOC

                                                              Akash Tayde




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                WRIT PETITION NO.2681 OF 2025


Avinash Rajaram Kalokhe                               …Petitioner
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.                     …Respondents


Mr. Adhik Kadam, for the Petitioner
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Manisha Devkar a/w Najali Kondvilkar, for the Respondent
No.2.


                      CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                      DATED :      17TH JUNE 2026
PC:-


1.     Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner and Ms. Devkar, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.2.

2.     By the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of

order dated 10th March 2025 passed by learned JMFC, 2 nd Court

Khed, Rajgurunagar, Pune of issuing process against the Petitioner.

3.     It is the submission of Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel

appearing for the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 has without




                                Page 1
                                               920-CRI.WP-2681-2025.DOC

                                                             Akash Tayde




the consent of the Petitioner over written on the cheque and

changed the date from 21st June 2023 to 21st September 2023. He

submits that therefore, the impugned order is required to be

quashed and set aside.

4.    On other hand, Ms. Devkar, learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent No.2 states that the cheque of Rs.4,47,680/- has

been given for repayment of the friendly loan given by the

Respondent No.2. The cheque was dated 21 st June 2023. However,

as the Petitioner wanted some more time to make arrangement for

the funds, he himself changed the date to 21 st September 2023 and

counter signed the said cheque. She points out photocopy of the

cheque which is annexed at Page No.26 of the Writ Petition and

states that the Petitioner’s signature on the cheque as well as

counter signature is the same.

5.    It is the submission of Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel

appearing for the Petitioner that although the signature on the

cheque is of the Petitioner the counter sign on the said change of

date is not the signature of the Petitioner.

6.    Perusal of both the signatures prima facie shows that the

signatures are of the same person. The signature on the cheque is

admitted by the Petitioner as his signature. Thus, the issue raised



                                 Page 2
                                               920-CRI.WP-2681-2025.DOC

                                                              Akash Tayde




by the Petitioner will have to be decided at the stage of trial.

7.    Accordingly, as no case is made out for interference under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is

dismissed.



                                           [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                 Page 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…