BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 10/12/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

1. Subbulakshmi,

2. Subbulakshmi Contractor, ... Petitioners

Vs

V.R. Rajendran, S/o.Veerappan,

D No.35, Pandian Nagar,

Dindigul.. ... Respondent

PRAYER :- Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 11.07.2025 in Crl MP No.5/2025 in STC No.983/2025 on the file of the

Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Dindigul and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Ms.Senni Syed Amma

For Respondent : Ms.Gokila Sandia

for Mr.S.Sarvagan Praphu

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, whereby the petitioner's request for obtaining a hand writing expert's opinion for the purpose of comparing the signature contained in the cheque No.004195 was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners are running a proprietary concerned in the name and style of Subbulakshmi contractor. The first petitioner’s son, namely, Sri Ram, was handling the business of the said proprietary concern. The said Sri Ram passed away on 30.07.2024. The complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act came to be lodged by the respondent herein, on the premise that Mrs.Subbulakshmi failed to honour the Cheque bearing No. 004195, which was issued for the purpose of family expenses and business purposes. When the respondent presented the cheque for encashment, the same was returned stating it exceeds the arrangements. Thereafter, a case came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul in S.T.C.No.983 of 2025 and notice was issued.

3. The case of the first petitioner is that she did not sign the subject cheque and with a view to prove the same, an application was filed for seeking to obtain an expert's opinion. However, the said application was rejected, on the ground that the cheque came to be dishonored only for the reason it exceeds arrangement and that there was no specific denial that the signature on the cheque was that of the petitioner.

4. This Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate had failed to note that even in the reply notice dated 26.10.2024 issued in response to the notice dated 19.10.2024, the petitioner had denied having issued the cheque bearing No.004195.

5. The petition in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2025 has been filed seeking for an expert's opinion and the relevant portion reads as under:

“tofF; Mtzqf; is guprPypid nraJ;

ghuf; i; fapy; tofF; fhNrhiyahdJ Exceeds Arrangement vdw; fhuzjj; pwf; hf jpUgg; gg; lL; ss; J. ifnaOjJ; khWghL vd Fwpgg; plL; jpUgg; gg; ltpyi; y. NkYk>; kDjhuu-vjpup jugg; py; mDgg; gg; ll; gjpywptpgg; py; fhNrhiyapy; css; ifnahgg; k; kWjJ; Fwpgg; plgg; ltpyi; y. jd; kfd;

g}P+uhk; vdg; tuplk; nfhLjJ; itjj; fhNrhiy vd Kde; pWjj; gg; ll; vjput; hjjj; pid nghWjJ; vej; rhlr; paqf; Sk;> rhd;wtzqf; Sk; Kde; pWjj; gg; lhj epiyapy; ,kk; D jhff; y; nraa; gg; lL; ss; J. kDtpy; nrhyy; gg; lL; s;s fhuzqf; s; VwW; fn; fhss; jj; ff; jhf ,yi; y. vdNt Nkwf; z;l fhuzqf; spd; mbgg; ilapy; ,kk; D kDjhuu;-vjpupfF; vjpuhfTk; vjpuk; Djhuu;- Gfhuj; huUfF; MjuthfTk; ,ee; Pjpkdw; k; jPuT;

fhzf; pwJ. ”

6. In the petition filed in support of the prayer for an expert opinion so far as the signature is concerned, it has been stated that the first petitioner has dishonoured the cheque the signature in the cheque, this would be clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the said petition, which reads as under:

“KiwaPLjhuuhy; r%fk; ePjpkdw; jj; py; jhff; y;

nraa; gg; lL; ss; fhNrhiyapy; css; ifnahgg; k; vdD; ilajyy; mjid vdJ NtW ifnahgg; qf; Sld; xgg; PL nraj; hy; njspthf njupa tUk; ehd; flej; 27.02.2023k; Njjp jpU uNk\; vdg; tUfF; ehd; vOjp nfhLj;j fpiua Mtzkhd F[pypakg; hiw rhu-; gjpthsu; mYtyf Mtz vz; 539/2023k; ; Mtzkhf gjpT nraa; gg; ll; Mtzk; kwW; k; ehd; flej; 02.03.2023k; Njjp jpUkjp Ggjp vdg; thplk; fpiuak; ngww; fd;dpthb rhu-; gjpthsu; mYtyf Mtz vz; 499/2