Ankur Chadha Vs. Ritu Chadha

..... however, on appeal against acquittal, the high court reversed the findings and convicted the appellant-accused. this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. with regard to the present facts, the high court found that the defence raised by the accused was not probable. in respect of the accused's stand that he had lost a blank cheque bearing his signature, the high court noted that in the instructions sent by the accused to his bank for stopping payment, there is a reference to cheque no. 0886322, dated 20-7-1999. this is in conflict with the complainant's version wherein the accused had given instructions for stopping payment in respect of the same cheque, albeit one which was dated 8-2-2001. the high court also noted that if the accused had indeed lost a blank cheque bearing his signature, the question of his mentioning the date of the cheque as 20-7-1999 could not arise. furthermore, during the cross-examination of the complainant, it was suggested on behalf of the accused that the complainant had the custody of the cheque since 1998. this suggestion indicates that the accused was aware of the fact that the complainant had the cheque, thereby weakening his claim of having lost a blank cheque. once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. the presumption referred to in section 139 of the n.i. act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. the defence raised by the accused was that a blank cheque was lost by him, which was made use of by the complainant. presumptions as to negotiable instruments. the purpose of a post-dated cheque is to provide some accommodation to the drawer of the cheque. existence of..........to be referred to the reporter or not?3. whether judgment should be reported in digest? 1. by this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 6th october, 2010 passed by the revision court dismissing the revision of the petitioner.2. brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that petitioner moved an application under section 156(3) of cr. p.c. for registration of an fir u/s 420, 425, 465, 468, 469, 471 and 120-b ipc read with section 191, 193, 195, 196, 199 and 200 of ipc against the respondent. the occasion for making this complaint was that the respondent filed a maintenance application against the petitioner and along with the maintenance application, she filed a letter of the company of the petitioner showing that the salary of the petitioner was more than rs. 5.00 lakh per annum. the petitioner contended that the letter filed by respondent was a forged letter and the original appointment letter was produced by the petitioner before the court showing that his salary was rs. 4.00 lakh per annum. the petitioner, therefore, requested that, for filing a forged appointment letter in the court during judicial proceedings to prejudice the mind of the court, an fir should be registered against the respondent under various sections of ipc as enumerated above. the learned mm considered that since the entire evidence was within the knowledge of the petitioner and was available on the judicial file, no police investigation was needed and directed that the petitioner should lead evidence treating the application as a complaint under section 200 cr.p.c.3. a person can move court to report about commission of offence under section 156 cr. p.c. when his effort to get an fir registered with the police fails. in the present case, the petitioner did not approach police for registration of fir. he directly made an application to the court under section 156 cr.p.c.. it was discretion of the court to send the application for registration of an fir.....