BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2025 and CRL.MP(MD)No.7148 and 13940 of 2025 M.Solaikannan, S/o.P.R.Murugesan, 39 Madi, 3^rd Main Street, M.V.M.Nagar, Dindigul.

... Revision Petitioner vs.

T.Raja Chidambaram, S/o.Theertham Pillai, 16E Sabthagiri Illam, M.V.M.Nagar, Dindigul. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.13919 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.3023 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Dindigul, dated 19.05.2025 and to set aside the same.

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan For Respondent : Ms.Gokila Santhiya, For Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu *****

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Ms.Gokila Santhiya, learned Counsel for Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.13919 of 2024 in S.T.C. No.3023 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, whereby the application filed by the Revision Petitioner seeking to send the disputed cheque to the Forensic Department for comparison of the handwriting and to obtain an expert opinion was dismissed by the Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

(a)On 01.05.2020, the Revision Petitioner/Accused requested the Respondent/Complainant to provide funds for family and business expenses. Subsequently, on 05.06.2020, the Respondent/Complainant provided Rs.12,50,000/- to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, for which the Revision Petitioner executed a promissory note (pronote) and agreed to pay interest. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner requested the Respondent and demanded money, then on 19.11.2021, the Respondent gave Rs.6,00,000/- and on 02.02.2022, the Respondent gave Rs.13,00,000/- to the Revision Petitioner, for which the Revision Petitioner executed a promissory note (pronote). Then on 29.03.2022, the Respondent gave Rs.3,50,000/-, for which the Revision Petitioner executed a promissory note (pronote). Thus, the Revision Petitioner received the amount of Rs.35 Lakh from the Respondent from the year 2020 to 2022.

(b)Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.

782827 dated 01.07.2022 for Rs.12,50,000/-, and the Respondent/Complainant returned the pronote upon receipt of the cheque. When the Respondent/Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 16.08.2022, it was returned on 17.08.2022 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” Hence, he filed a separate case against the Revision Petitioner.

(c)Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner issued another cheque bearing No.782828 dated 03.08.2022 drawn on IndusInd Bank, Dindigul for Rs.22,50,000/-, and the Respondent/Complainant returned the pronote upon receipt of the cheque. When the Respondent/Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 23.08.2022, it was returned on 25.08.2022 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” Consequently, the Respondent sent a legal notice dated 23.09.2022 to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, demanding payment of the cheque amount. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant filed a private complaint against the Revision Petitioner in S.T.C. No. 3023 of 2022.

(d) According to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, he did not fill up the alleged cheque. However, the Respondent/Complainant contends that the Revision Petitioner/Accused filled up the cheque and handed it over to him on 05.04.2022. It is noted that the cheque in question was issued by the Bank in the year 2015, but the Respondent/Complainant alleges that it was filled up and issued by the Revision Petitioner/Accused on 05.04.2022. To verify the disputed handwriting on the cheque, the Revision Petitioner filed a petition before the le