Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

R.Mohamed Rafeek vs N.Prabhakaran
2025 Latest Caselaw 512 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 512 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 June, 2025

Madras High Court

R.Mohamed Rafeek vs N.Prabhakaran on 4 June, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
                                                                                              CRL.R.C.No.636 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 04.06.2025

                                                                CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                     Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2025
                                              and Crl.M.P.No.10253 of 2025

                R.Mohamed Rafeek                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                                                     Vs.

                N.Prabhakaran                                             ... Respondent
                PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 438 read with
                Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the
                records and set aside the order dated 17.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2497 of
                2025 in C.C.No.948 of 2021 on the file of the Learned III Metropolitan
                Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
                                   For Petitioner          :         Mr.M.G.Abdul Jaleel
                                   For Respondent          :         Mr.N.Baskaran


                                                                ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order dated

17.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2497 of 2025 in C.C.No.948 of 2021 on the

file of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, thereby

dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian

Evidence Act, to send Ex.D1 for expert opinion by comparing the signature of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:54 pm )

the respondent with admitted signature.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

in C.C.No.948 of 2021. During trial, the petitioner was examined as DW.1 and

marked Ex.D1. The respondent had cross examined the petitioner in detail. The

specific case of the respondent is that the said Ex.D1 was not issued by the

respondent and also denied the signature found in Ex.D1. It is a further case of

the respondent that after a period of four years from the date of filing the

complaint, Ex.D1 was produced before the Trial Court. In fact, the petitioner did

not even whisper about Ex.D1 by way of reply notice, on the statutory notice

issued by the respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, after receipt of the statutory notice, the

petitioner did not even send any reply.

4. If at all, the respondent had received the entire amount for the invoice

which was marked as Ex.P1, definitely the petitioner would have issued reply

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:54 pm )

notice for the statutory notice caused by the respondent. That apart, already the

respondent filed a suit for recovery of money under the same invoice which was

marked as Ex.P1 and three other invoices and all the suits were decreed in

favour of the respondent.

5. It is also curious to note that the petitioner did not even whisper about

Ex.D1 in any of the suits filed by the respondent for recovery of money. That

apart, CC is of the year 2021 and when the complaint is posted for Judgment,

the petitioner filed the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

seeking expert opinion on Ex.D1.

6. In view of the above, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality

in the Judgment passed in Crl.M.P.No.2497 of 2025 in C.C.No.948 of 2021 on

the file of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the complaint, in CC.No.948

of 2021, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:54 pm )

04.06.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:54 pm )

To

The III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:54 pm )

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

mn

04.06.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:54 pm )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter