MAHADEV RAMCHANDAR JANKARversusSHANKAR EKNATH MALI AND ANR.

                                                     904 - CR WP - 4142 - 2018 .docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2018

      1.   Mahadev Ramchandra Jankar
           Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs

  1.A      Parvati Shankar Mali
           Age: 70, Occ: Agriculture,

  1.B. Govind Shankar Mali
       Age: 53, Occ: Agriculture,

  1.C      Ramesh Shankar Mali,
           Age: 47, Occ: Agriculture,

  1.D      Kumar Shankar Mali,
           Age 49, Occ: Agriculture,

           All 1 to 4 R/o-
           Malvadi, Tal: Sangola,
           District: Solapur

  1.E. Sampada Ravsaheb Mali
       Age: 45, Occ: Household,
       R/o-Vidyanagar Colony,
       Tal: Alibaug, District: Raigad
                                                          … Petitioner

                             Versus

      1.   Shankar Eknath Mali
           Age: 76 Yrs Occ: Business & Agriculture
           R/o Maiwadi, A/p Tal: Sangola
           Dist: Solapur

      2.   The State of Maharashtra
                                                          … Respondents




VRJ                                   1 of 6
                                                       904 - CR WP - 4142 - 2018 .docx


                                -------

Mr. Pratik Patil i/by Mr. Kuldeep Nikam for the Petitioner.
Mr. C.D. Mali, APP for the State.

                                -------

                           CORAM          :   ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                           DATED          :   SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

ORAL JUDGEMENT :


1.    Heard, Mr. Pratik Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.

C.D. Mali, learned APP for the State.


2.    By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has

assailed the Order dated 9th August 2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Sangola (“Magistrate”), which rejected the application filed by the

Petitioner at Exhibit 21 in S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016 (“impugned order”).


3.    The material facts relevant to the adjudication of this petition are that

the   Respondent No.1 (Complainant) initiated proceedings before the

Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI

Act”), read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, against the Petitioner

(Accused), registered as S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016. The complaint relates to non-

payment of cheque No. 075848, dated 23 rd October 2015, for Rs. 9,25,000/-,



VRJ                                 2 of 6
                                                     904 - CR WP - 4142 - 2018 .docx


drawn on Sangola Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Sangola, in favour of

Respondent No. 1 (“said cheque”). The complaint was preceded by a demand

notice dated 19th November 2015, to which the Petitioner replied vide his

reply dated 2nd December 2015. The Petitioner's failure to comply with the

demand for payment within the stipulated time led to the filing of the

complaint.


a.       The Magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and issued process on

18th February 2016. Upon receipt of the summons, the Petitioner appeared.

The Magistrate recorded the substance of the accusation against the

Petitioner on 2nd April 2016.


b.       On 28th November 2017, the Petitioner filed an application (at Exhibit

21) in S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016, seeking to refer the said cheque to a handwriting

expert to ascertain the age of the Petitioner's signature on the said cheque.

This request was opposed by Respondent No. 1.


c.       By the impugned order, the Magistrate dismissed the application at

Exhibit 21, holding that there was no need to refer the said cheque to a

handwriting expert, as the Petitioner's contentions would constitute his

defence and that he would have the opportunity to lead his defence in the

trial.


4.       Mr. Pratik Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the


VRJ                                 3 of 6
                                                       904 - CR WP - 4142 - 2018 .docx


impugned order is illegal. He further submits that the issue raised by the

Petitioner in the application at Exhibit 21, viz. the need to determine the age

of the Petitioner’s signature on the said cheque, goes to the root of the matter.

He relies on the decision in T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. Muralidhar 1 .


5.        Despite notice in this petition, Respondent No. 1 remains absent.


6.        Mr. C. D. Mali, learned APP for the State, submits that the impugned

order is within the bounds of law and that no fault is found therein.


7.        The record on file in this petition was perused with the assistance of

the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.


8.        The Petitioner has admitted signing the said cheque. The Petitioner has

not raised any contentions in this petition regarding the issuance of the

cheque, its dishonour on presentation by the payee, the issuance of the

statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act or the filing of the complaint

within the prescribed statutory period. Thus, the statutory presumption

contemplated under Section 139 of the NI Act comes into play.


9.        In T. Nagappa (supra), the cheque in question was signed in 1999 and

the handwriting appearing on the cheque was filled up in the month of

August, October and December 2004. In that context, an expert opinion was

found necessary.
1     (2008) 5 SCC 633


VRJ                                  4 of 6
                                                       904 - CR WP - 4142 - 2018 .docx


10.   In contrast, in the case at hand, the Petitioner does not contend that

there is any variance either in the writing in the body of the said cheque or in

the signature, or, for that matter, in the ink used.


11.   The solitary contention urged by Mr. Pratik Patil, learned Advocate for

the Petitioner, for filing the application at Exhibit-21 is to ascertain the age of

the Petitioner’s signature on the said cheque. Apart from stating that the age

of the signature on the said cheque is required to be ascertained, the

Petitioner has not produced any material to even prima facie test the

Petitioner's contention regarding the age of his admitted signature on the said

cheque. The application at Exhibit-21 appears to be a roving inquiry intended

to prolong the proceedings.


12.     The Magistrate has given acceptable reasons for rejecting the

application at Exhibit 21. The Petitioner has failed to show any perversity or

error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained.


13.   In view of the above, no case is made out for entertaining this Petition.


14.   This Petition has been pending since 2018. By order dated 20 th

September 2022 in this Petition, the Petitioner was exempted from personal

appearance before the Magistrate in S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016. Mr. Pratik Patil,

learned Advocate for the Petitioner, informs that S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016 before

the Magistrate has not proceeded further. Considering the above situation,


VRJ                                5 of 6
                                                                         904 - CR WP - 4142 - 2018 .docx


                   the Magistrate is requested to dispose of the said S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016 in

                   accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six

                   (6) months from the receipt of this judgment being placed on record in S.T.C.

                   No. 5 of 2016.


                   15.       The Petitioner is directed to place this judgment before the Magistrate

                   in S.T.C. No. 5 of 2016 on the next date fixed in the matter. In addition, the

                   Registry of this Court is directed to forward this Judgement to the Judicial

                   Magistrate First Class, Sangola, before whom the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 5

                   of 2016 are pending.


                   16.       Criminal Writ Petition No. 4142 of 2018 stands dismissed. No orders as

                   to costs.




                                                                    (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
          Digitally signed
VAIBHAV by VAIBHAV
        RAMESH
RAMESH JADHAV
        Date:
JADHAV 2026.09.07
          10:35:55 +0530




                   VRJ                                  6 of 6