Madras High Court
G.Subhashini vs M.Dhanalakshmi on 31 October, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C. No.1720 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2022
G.Subhashini ... Petitioner
Vs.
M.Dhanalakshmi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401
Cr.P.C, to set aside the sentence and conviction dated 11.11.2022 in
C.A.No.295 of 2016 against the revision petitioner by the learned VII
Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chennai confirming the
judgment and sentence in C.C.No.300 of 2015 on the file of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court - IV, George Town at Chennai
dated 02.11.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Madhan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thirumaran
**********
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 300 of 2015 was convicted by
the trial Court by a judgment dated 02.11.2016 and sentenced to undergo
three months’ simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount
Rs. 2.5 lakhs as compensation to the de facto complainant. Aggrieved by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in
Crl.A.No.295 of 2016. The Sessions Court, by its judgment dated
11.11.2022, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and
sentence of the trial Court, against which the present revision is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a lady and that she had no transaction with the respondent-
complainant. The petitioner had taken a loan from the husband of the one
Mukesh @ Murugesan @ Kanthuvatti Murugesan contrary to the same
the case is projected against the petitioner that on 21.10.2013, the
petitioner took a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and agreed to pay principal with
1% interest, and the loan was for family requirement. Later, almost a year
after, two cheques were issued on 24.11.2014 bearing Nos.65143 for
Rs.50,000/- and 65144 for Rs.2,00,000/- arriving to the value of Rs. 2.5
lakhs. When the cheques were presented, they were not honoured and
returned for the reason "payment stopped". The cheque was marked as
Ex.P1 and the return memo as Ex.P2, followed by the statutory notice on
09.12.2014 - Ex.P3. The notice was undelivered with the endorsement of
"Absent Intimation Delivered". Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 confirm the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
trial Court merely relied on the presumption under Sections 118 and 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted the petitioner
without considering the cross-examination conducted in detail wherein
the petitioner had probablised her defence. During appeal, petitioner,
while filed a petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C to bring additional
evidence to prove that the respondent's husband lodged a complaint and
appeared before the Inspector of Police, N1, Royapuram Police Station
wherein the confirmed the loan transaction with the petitioner. For the
harassment and misuse of the cheque, the petitioner’s father lodged a
complaint with the Chief Minister Cell and a complaint was given to the
Inspector of Police, N1, Royapuram. The respondent’s husband endorsed
dispute resolved and the Inspector closed the complaint, when these
documents were received to be brought on record as additional defence
evidence. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea and
thereafter the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 906 of
2020 and this Court, by order dated 22.12.2019, directed the lower
Appellate Court to take additional evidence. The petitioner examined
herself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 to D4 which further fortified the
explanation and probablised her defence. The lower Appellate Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
however, discorded the same not considered the evidence independently
and dismissed the appeal. Hence it is argued that perversity committed
and revision to be allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant strongly
opposed the petitioner’s contention and submitted that the petitioner
taken provocative stand at each stage. During the trial, the respondent
examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The cross-examination of
the respondent was conducted in detail on 13.10.2015, 28.10.2015 and
06.06.2016. On 13.10.2015, the respondent gave details when questioned
about her capacity to lend a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and her capability, the
respondent clearly answered that she pledged her jewels and keeping
money for leasing out/pay a house for rent. When she was cross-
examination on 28.10.2015, the respondent’s husband’s employment and
his money-lending business questioned and he lodging complaints
against defaulters were questioned in detail. Further, a specific question
put to the respondent was that in July 2014 she lodged a complaint with
N.I. Royapuram Police. During enquiry, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.
1 lakh and settled the issue within one week. Further, her husband had
given an undertaking to the police which is the specific case put forth by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
the petitioner, and another question was that the respondent gave a blank
signed cheque which is filled up and questioned the ink variations.
Though the question was put whether cheque can be sent for forensic
examination. Thereafter, no further steps taken. On the cross-
examination conducted on 06.09.2016 was with regard to the police
complaint. The petitioner took different stand at each stage during trial
and appeal and marked Exs.D1 to D4. The petitioner neither denied the
cheque nor her signature but took a different stand at different stages.
This was considered by both the trial Court as well as the lower
Appellate Court, and rightly held though the petitioner had examined
herself as D.W.1 and whenever difficult questions faced, she
conveniently evaded by answering she did not remember which expose
the criminality of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions and the materials available on
record, this Court finds petitioner not denied the issuance of the cheque
and her signature; her only contention is that cheque given to the
husband of the respondent and not to the respondent. Though the
respondent was elaborately cross examined nothing could be culled out
in favour of the petitioner on the other hand respondent answered giving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
details and clarified the police complaint and petition sent to the Chief
Minister's Grievance Cell. The cross-examination by the petitioner’s side
clearly exposed the petitioner’s inconsistency and taking different stands
in the case at each stage. In this case, both courts below, by well-
reasoned judgments rightly convicted the petitioner; this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to issue the conviction warrant and secure the
petitioner without delay to undergo the period of her conviction. It is
made clear that in the interregnum, if the petitioner comes forward for
settlement and discharge her liability, she can approach the complainant
for compounding the offence which can be entertained even by the trial
Court.
31.10.2025
nvi
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation: Yes/No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
To
1.The VII Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chennai
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court - Iv, George Town at
Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
nvi
31.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 09:30:41 pm )
