Madras High Court
A.Mani vs S.Natarajan on 10 September, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.942 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.942 of 2025
and
CRL MP(MD)No.9948 of 2025
A.Mani,
S/o.Arumugam,
Door No.1/133-K-14,
T.K.Pet, Koodalur,
Koodalur Taluk,
Nilgiri District. ... Petitioner
vs.
S.Natarajan,
S/o.Late.Sooryagandhan,
Door No.3/175B,
Akkamanayakkanpudur,
Neikkarapatty Post, Palani Town,
Dindigul District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertains to the impugned order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023 in S.T.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.942 of 2025
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level,
Palani dated 03.07.2025 and set aside the same and to allow this
Criminal Revision Case.
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Jeyaprakash
For Respondent :Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiayan
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.C.Jeyaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiayan, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
to set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023 in
S.T.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court at Magisterial Level, Palani dated 03.07.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
3. Mr.C.Jeyaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the cheque in question was not filled by the Petitioner and
was not handed over to the Respondent. It is averred that a signed blank
cheque was given as security to the Respondent's father, which was not
returned despite payment. After the Respondent's father's demise, the
Respondent allegedly filled in the blank cheque and misused it. During
cross-examination, the Petitioner admitted that the cheque was not filled
by him, while acknowledging that he had filled the bank challan. He
further submits that the handwriting in the cheque and bank challan
allegedly belongs to the Respondent, and the Petitioner claims that the
Respondent has deposed false evidence before the Trial Court.
To examine the disputed cheque and bank challan, the Petitioner filed a
petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial
Level, Palani, in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023, seeking to refer the cheque
and bank challan to an expert for opinion. However, the Trial Court
dismissed the petition vide order dated 03.07.2025, prompting the
Petitioner to file the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
4. Per contra, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiayn, learned counsel for
the Respondent submitted that the Trial Court has passed the impugned
order after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as
well as the statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is
contended that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of
justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this
Court. There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned
order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court. It is
submitted that the Petitioner's signature on the cheque has not been
denied, and the contention that the cheque was issued for security is not
plausible for the purpose of appointing an Expert.
5 I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point
out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned
order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The
Petitioner has moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2023 seeking
to refer the case cheque and the bank challan to an expert for the purpose
of obtaining an opinion by comparing their contents and the same was
dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2025 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court at Magisterial Level, Palani. The contention of the
Petitioner is that the cheque was issued for security, but this contention is
not plausible in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Purushottam Versus Manohar K. Deshmukh and another, wherein it
has been held that if a person hands over a duly signed blank cheque,
thereby he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice and
to present the same for encashment. The cheque does not loose its
sanctity merely due to the fact that the same has been filled in by some
other person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
7. It is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 138 2019 SCC Online 138 (AIR 2019
SC 2446 : 2019, Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar), wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the presumption as to legally enforceable
debt, the rebuttal of signed blank cheque, if voluntarily presented to
payee towards the payment, payee may fill up the amount and other
particulars, that itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would
still be on the accused to prove the cheque was not issued for discharge
of debtor liability by adducing evidence.
8. In the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, reported in (2010) 11
SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the accused admits
his signature in the cheque, then the presumption comes into play in
favour of the complainant.
9. In the present case, there is no denial of issuance of cheque and
signature of the petitioner on the cheque and there is no foundation laid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
by the petitioner's counsel to say that the cheque was stolen or signature
was forged by the complainant. Thus, the question of referring the
cheque to the Expert for getting opinion on the contents of the cheque
other than the signature is not useful to the Petitioner.
10. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, this
Court finds that the petition is devoid of merits, and the impugned order does not
warrant any interference. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
Index :Yes / No 10.09.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Nsr
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level,
Palani.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
Nsr
Order made in
10.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 12:51:54 pm )
