Crl.R.C.No.1296 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

Crl.R.C.No.1296 of 2023

Papji

... Petitioner

Vs.

Pandiyammal

... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal

Procedure Code to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.9557/2022 in

S.T.C.No.314/2021 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur

dated 26.05.2023 and call for records.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ezhil Raj

ORDER

Challenging the orders dated 26.05.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.9557/2022

in S.T.C.No.314/2021 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate,

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1296 of 2023

Tiruppur, the present revision petitioner/accused has filed this criminal

revision.

2.The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner/accused for an offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the

complaint, the respondent had stated that the accused is his family friend

and in the year 2018, he borrowed various amounts on different dates. In

order to discharge the debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing

No.485540 dated 03.11.2020 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State

Bank of India, Tirupur branch. When the said cheque was presented for

collection by the complainant on 04.11.2020, the same was returned for

the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal

notice dated 12.11.2020 to the revision petitioner demanding the latter to

make good the amount due under the cheque. Though the revision

petitioner received the said notice as is seen from the Registered Postal

Acknowledgement Card, the accused did not come forward to make good

the payment. He did not also send any reply.

Page 2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1296 of 2023

3.Thereafter, the respondent/complainant filed the private

complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC before the Fast Track Judicial

Magistrate, Tiruppur. The same was taken on file in STC No.314/2021.

After receiving summons, the accused entered appearance. Copies of

records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.PC. and when the

accused was questioned with regard to the substance of the accusations

made in the complaint, the revision petitioner/accused denied having

committed the offence. The complainant examined himself and he cross

examined by the accused at length. In fact, the accused had not denied

the signature on the cheque issued by him to the complainant and no

suggestion was put to PW1 (complainant) in this regard. Subsequently,

the accused filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.9557/2022 before the trial

Court under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act for comparing the

writings made on the impugned cheque.

4.The respondent/complainant filed a detailed counter and the

learned trial court judge after analyzing the rival submissions dismissed

Page 3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1296 of 2023

the petition filed by the accused on the following grounds :

i. The accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice issued

by the complainant.

ii. The accused had filed this application at the fag end of the trial and

the intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings.

iii. Even assuming that the complainant had filled up the amount and

date in the cheque, Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes

into operation and therefore, the impugned cheque cannot be sent

for expert's opinion.

5.Heard Mr.S.Ezhil Raj, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner.

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that

the revision petitioner/accused issued only a signed blank cheque and that

the complainant had filled it up subsequently. But as rightly observed by

the learned trial court judge, even if the case of the accused is admitted to

be tru