Madras High Court
S.Shalini vs G.Ganesh on 6 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
S.Shalini ... Petitioner
..vs..
G.Ganesh ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401
Cr.P.C, to set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level -IV, Chennai in
Crl.M.P.No.6825 of 2019 in C.C.No.1342 of 2015 dated 18.03.2020 and
consequently permit the petitioner for giving sample signature to the
handwriting expert to compare the signature in question on the cheque.
For Petitioner : M/s.Karpagam M
for Mr.R.Prabhakaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated
18.03.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6825 of 2019 in C.C.No.1342 of 2015
on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court at
Magistrate Level -IV, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1342 of 2015 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. Further, the petitioner
filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6825 of 2019 under Section 45 of Indian
Evidence Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court at
Magistrate Level -IV, Chennai seeking to get the opinion of the hand
writing expert. After considering the materials, the learned Magistrate
dismissed the said petition on ground that the petitioner herself admitted
the fact that she has given a blank cheque as security for the debts.
Therefore, once the petitioner has admitted the issuance of the cheque,
the same need not be sent for expert opinion. Challenging the said order
the petitioner is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
cheque was returned with an endorsement as 'drawers signature
mismatch' and the petitioner has also not admitted her signature in the
cheque. Hence, it is necessary to send the cheque in question for expert
opinion to ascertain the correcteness and genuineness of the signature
appearing thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition before the
learned Magistrate under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act. The
learned Magistrate, however, failed to consider the object of Section 45
of Indian Evidence Act and dismissed the petition. If the expert opinion
comes, it will helpful to the case of the petitioner.
4. In support of her contention the leaned counsel also relied upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Baskar (Mrs)
vs M.S.Sampoornam (Mrs) reported in 2007 (2) SCC 258;
P.R.Ramakrishnan Vs. P.Govindarajan reported in 2007 SCC online
Mad 1018; and A.Sivagnana Pandian Vs. M.Ravichandran reported in
2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 173.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
6.Admittedly, the petitioner has been shown as accused in
C.C.No.1342 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Chengalpattu and the same is pending for more than five years. The
petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.6825 of 2019 under Section 45 of Indian
Evidence Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court at
Magistrate Level -IV, Chennai. More over, the petitioner also stated in
paragraph No.3 of the petition that the complainant got a blank cheque
from the petitioner as security for the debt. Once, the petitioner admitted
the issuance of the cheque, it need not be sent to the expert for
comparison of the signature in the admitted documents. It is the duty of
the petitioner to rebut the presumption. Further, this Court is of the view
that the decisions cited supra are not similar to the facts of the present
case on hand. In the present case, the petitioner herself clearly admitted
the issuance of the blank cheque to the complainant for security purpose.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
7. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in
the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The Criminal Revision Case
is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
8. Since the complaint is pending from the year 2015, the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu is directed to dispose of the
complaint in C.C.No.1342 of 2015 within a period of six months from
today in accordance with law.
06.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
To
1.The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level -IV,
Chennai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Chengalpattu.
Crl. R.C. No.1274 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8950 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
