Madras High Court
P.Thangaraj vs K.Shankar on 3 January, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.2215 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.2215 of 2023 and
Crl.M.P.No.19914 of 2023
P.Thangaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.Shankar ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated
17.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in S.T.C.No.16 of 2022 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Coonoor
and set aside the same and consequently allow the petitioner to compare the
written words in the Ex.P1 with petitioner's handwriting by way of getting
opinion from the handwritten experts to prove the handwriting of the petitioner
by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharathkumar
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.16 of 2022 has filed a petition under
Section 45 r/w 73 of the Indian Evidence Act in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in
S.T.C.No.16 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at
Magisterial Level, Coonoor (trial Court) to send the cheque for handwriting
expert for opinion. The trial Court, by impugned order, dated 17.10.2023
dismissed the same, against which the present Criminal Revision Case has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filed.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court
ought to have allowed the petition to ascertain whether the words filled up in the
cheque (Ex.P1) are matching with the handwriting of the petitioner in order to
effectively determine the case. He further submitted that the respondent was
arrested by the Upper Coonoor Police in a criminal case, the petitioner as a
Reporter covered the said news and published in the newspaper. As a
counterblast, the respondent lodged the false complaint in S.T.C.No.16 of 2022.
The observation of the trial Court that there is no mechanism to ascertain the
age of the ink and period of handwriting is not correct. The right of the
petitioner/accused to get expert opinion to prove his case is enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court failed to take into
consideration that in the year 2015, the petitioner lost his cheque (Ex.P1) and
reported the same to his banker Karur Vysya Bank which fact is confirmed by
DW2, the Bank Manager in his evidence. This being so, how the respondent
lodged the complaint as though the petitioner handed over the cheque of the
year 2020. Further, the petitioner also cross examined the respondent in detail
to putforth the above said facts. The respondent's contention that the cheque
(Ex.P1) was filled up, signed and handed over by the petitioner would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
demolished only if the cheque (Ex.P1) is forwarded to the handwriting expert
and the same would cut the root of the case. These facts have not been
considered by the trial Court. Hence, he filed the present Criminal Revision
Case to set aside the impugned order.
3.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen
that the petitioner took contradictory stand with regard to possession of the
cheque with the respondent. His first stand is that he is having office at Jain
Store building, since the petitioner was also an Astrologer, the respondent used
to approach him to get advice for his son's marriage, at that time, the respondent
took away the cheque (Ex.P1), got it filled up and filed the complaint. The
petitioner examined himself as DW1 wherein he deposed that he employed a
lady in his office and whenever he was outstation, he used to leave signed
cheque with that lady employee for urgent expense. On one such occasion,
when he came back and asked for the signed cheque, the petitioner was
informed that the cheque has been misplaced, at that point of time, the
respondent came to his office. Though there was a suspicion against the
respondent, he had not taken it forward then. Now, it has come to know that
this missing cheque has been misused. In this case, the petitioner neither denies
the cheque nor the signature found in it. The other stand is that the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has got no source of income to give loan to the petitioner. Further, the
respondent has been filing cheque bounce cases either in his name or in the
name of his wife and daughter in a deceitful manner.
4.On the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on
perusal of the materials filed along with this criminal revision, it is seen that the
trial Court passed a detailed order with reasons, referring to the evidence of the
witnesses. The explanation now given by the petitioner can be considered at the
time of judgment. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not required
for the cheque to be forwarded for handwriting opinion.
5.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed confirming
the impugned order, dated 17.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in
S.T.C.No.16 of 2022 passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.01.2024
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level,
Coonoor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR., J.
vv2
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
