Madras High Court
R. Vijayalakshmi vs P. Muthuraj on 9 July, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
R. Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs.
P. Muthuraj .. Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the order in
Crl.M.P.No.3400 of 2015 in S.T.C.No.134 of 2014 dated 30.09.2015 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode and set
aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Elangovan
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
ORDER
The matter is heard through "Video Conference".
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice
was served on the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the
respondent.
3. This criminal revision case is filed against the order dated
30.09.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court),
Tiruchengode, in Crl.M.P.No.3400/2015, which was filed under Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque to the Forensic Department
for verification of the signature of the accused in the cheque. As the said
petition was disputed, the learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the
same.
4. The respondent filed a case against the petitioner under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the cheque issued by
the petitioner dated 19.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was dishonoured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
with the endorsement "Insufficient of funds" and "drawer's signature differs
from the specimen of record", and the petitioner has not chosen to repay the
amount mentioned in the cheque. Hence, the complaint.
5. Since the signature found in the cheque was forged one, the
petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act in
Crl.M.P.No.3400 of 2015 for an order to compare the dispute signature
found in the cheque dated 10.06.2014 along with the admitted signature in
order to get the expert opinion. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed
the above petition on 30.09.2015. As against which the petitioner is filing
this revision petition.
6. After going through Ex.P2 bank return memo, I find that in
addition to insufficiency in the accounts, the bank also noted that the
signature foun in the cheque varies. The allegation of the petitioner was
also corroborated by the returned slip issued by the bank that "Drawer's
signature differs from the specimen on record". Thus, It is necessary to send
the disputed signature for expert opinion and the trial Court ought to have
ordered the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
7. The genuineness of the signature can be questioned only at the
time of trial. It is open to the trial Court to exercise the power under Section
73 of the Indian Evidence Act, to compare the signature found in the
disputed cheque as well as the admitted documents, but the facts remains
that it is always better to send the disputed signatures for expert opinion as
it will help the trial Court to resolve the issue involved.
8. It is seen that the signature disputed by the accused, the
particulars has to be given to him to explain the situation and hence, the
comparison with the admitted signature on contemporaneous period. In this
regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Nagappa Vs.
Y.R.Muralidhar reported in reported in (2008 (5) SCC 633), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in such circumstances, it is
better to send the signature found in the disputed cheque for expert opinion.
The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was referred by the
Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.473/2014 dated 19.01.2015.
9. In view of the above factual position, I find that the above said
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
Bench of this Court (cited supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the
present case. Since it is the petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence
Act, taking into consideration, the one of the reason for return of cheque is
that the signature found in the cheque found to be at variance as the sample
signature in bank records. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is
allowed and the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode, in Crl.M.P.No.3400 of 2015 in
S.T.C.No.134 of 2014, is set aside. Consequently, Crl.M.P.3400/2015 stands
allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate is required to send the disputed
cheque to the Forensic Department by observing necessary formalities,
within 21 days and complete the case within 12 weeks thereafter.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.07.2021
AT
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
AT
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court),
Tiruchengode.
Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
