Crl.R.C.No.627 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 20.03.2023

PRONOUNCED ON: 05.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.R.C.No.627 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P.No.10403 of 2021

Dhana Vanthan

...

Petitioner

/vs/

Ravi Chettiyar

...

Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 &

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.149 of

2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurantagam and set aside the

order passed on 05.03.2021 and allow the Crl.R.C. /2021 and send the

document Ex.P2 cheque to the Handwriting Expert to verify the signature

of the petitioner in Ex.P2.

For Petitioner

... Mr.A.N.Rajan

For Respondent

... Notice Served

(No appearance)

Page 1 of 7

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

Crl.R.C.No.627 of 2021

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 05.03.2021 passed in

C.C.No.149 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantagam, the

present criminal revision case has been filed.

2.The fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused in

C.C.No.149 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Maduranthagam. The respondent filed a complaint against the

petitioner/accused for an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In this

case, witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and documents

have been marked. When the case is posted for defence side evidence, the

petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence

Act sought to forward the disputed cheque Ex.P2 for testing his signature

to the forensic department to obtain an expert opinion as the petitioner

disputed his signature in the cheque. The petition was dismissed by the

trial Court on the ground that during the cross examination, the petitioner

had not disputed his signature in the cheque Ex.P2, only for dragging the

case, filed this application. Hence, it is under Challenge.

Page 2 of 7

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

Crl.R.C.No.627 of 2021

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the

respondent/complainant filed a complaint for the offence under Section

138 of N.I.Act upon the dishonour of cheque Ex.P2 for the amount of

Rs.25,00,000/-. The petitioner disputed his signature in the cheque and he

took the specific defence of forgery of signature, the complainant had not

taken any steps to prove the cheque before the Court. Therefore, it has to

be sent to the forensic department to obtain an expert opinion otherwise the

petitioner will suffer serious loss and hardship and thus, pleaded to set

aside the impugned order and to allow the criminal revision.

4.Notice was served to the respondent/complainant but he did not

appear either in person or through his counsel.

5.I have considered the matter in the light of the submission made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.On perusal of the records, the fact reveals that the

respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for

Page 3 of 7

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

Crl.R.C.No.627 of 2021

the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The case has been taken on file

by the trial Court in C.C.No.149 of 2019 and the witnesses were examined

and documents Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. The case is posted for defence

side evidence. At this stage, this petition is filed by the petitioner under

Section 45 of the Evidence Act sought to forward the cheque Ex.P2 to the

forensic department to obtain an expert opinion with regard to the

signature of the drawer.

7.I have gone through the impugned order, the learned judge in para

5 detaily discussed the factual background of the case and noticed that

while cross examining the witnesses, the accused had not cross examined

with regard to the signature in the cheque Ex.P2. Further, the

petitioner/accused had not cross examined the compla