'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 17.03.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.R.C.(MD)No.60 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.762 of 2024 Abinaya ... Petitioners/Petitioner/ Accused Vs.

Vanitha : Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records pertaining to the order in Cr.M.P.No.11550 of 2023 in S.T.C.No.168 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, dated 20.12.2023 and set aside the order.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.D.Senthil

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.

11550 of 2023 in S.T.C.No.168 of 2021, dated 20.12.2023, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 (wrongly stated as 47) of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. The respondent as complainant filed a private complaint under Section

200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the case was pending for defence evidence, the accused has filed the application allegedly under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed cheque to the Forensic Science Expert for getting opinion to show that the contents of the cheque were not written by the petitioner/accused. The respondent filed a counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 dismissing the said petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the present revision came to be filed.

3. Regarding the objection with regard to the filing of the petition under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, no doubt, the petitioner ought to have filed the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 47 has no application to the case on hand. But at the same time, mere quoting a wrong provision of law does not disentitle the petitioner from claiming the relief nor preventing the Court from granting the relief.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of a building owned by the respondent's husband, that the respondent's husband used to take Swift Dzire car baring Registration No.TN-65-AW-5656 owned by the petitioner very often, that the petitioner after giving her cheques as security for the home loan obtained from Repco Bank, kept the remaining unfilled four cheques bearing Nos.477763, 477765, 477766, 477769 issued by the State Bank of India, Paramakudi branch, in the car dash board. The respondent's husband while taking the car had stolen the said cheques and also a blank signed promissory note and after coming to know about the same, gave an intimation to the bank to stop payment. The complainant, during her cross-examination, has stated that it was only the accused who had written the contents of the cheque, but the petitioner had not filled up anything other than signing the cheque and never issued the cheques to the respondent or her husband. Since the petitioner is having the burden to prove the falsity of the respondent's case, the disputed cheque has to be sent to the Forensic Science Expert so as to ascertain that the content of the cheque were not written by the petitioner and hence, an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to take the cheques to the Forensic Science Laboratory and to get an opinion.

5. The respondent has filed a counter statement disputing the petitioner's averments and stated that when a person is admitting that he had affixed the signature in the cheque, then it will be irrelevant as to who had filled up, that the respondent has filed the complaint in the year 2021 and the same is pending for more than 2 years, that when the case was pending for defence side evidence, with an evil intention to cause delay in disposing of the c