Revision jurisdiction limited to palpable errors; cannot re-appreciate evidence based on prior admissions.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level – II, Coimbatore, dated 26.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.9240 of 2024 in C.C.No.956 of 2018.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in an application filed by the petitioner to send the cheques to a forensic expert. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband was working in the respondent/complainant’s office and when he was working there, he has misappropriated certain amount and in order to discharge the amount, he has given the cheque leaves issued in the account of the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has not at all issued such cheque and has never signed the same and apart from that, the cheque was issued in the Month of April, 2017, whereas the petitioner had separated from her husband in the month of March, 2017. Therefore, the question of issuance of cheque does not arise. In spite of such fact, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application.

3. At this juncture, Ms.T.Trishala, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that according to reply in Ex.P.10, the petitioner herself has admitted that her husband got her sign in blank cheque, which was misused by her husband. Apart from that, during 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, the petitioner has not at all raised such an objection and the present application has been filed only to delay and protract the prosecution.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.

5. It is well settled principle of law that the contours of revision is very limited and evidence cannot be reappreciated. The Court should only look into the palpable error or manifest injustice and perversing in the order.

6. While looking into the order, the learned Magistrate has recorded that in Ex.P.10, (reply notice), the petitioner herself had stated that she has signed blank cheque and apart from that, the petitioner also not disputed her signature when she was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Only, based on the above context of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she has not at all signed the cheque and the cheques were misused by her husband, contrary to such contention, in her reply i.e., in Ex.P.10, she had stated about the mishandling of her signed cheque by her husband and she has also not making any specific denial in respect of her signature at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the above factual observations made by the learned Magistrate, this Court absolutely does not find any perversity over the order and thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the order.