Allowed

N.Murugesan v. P.Balakankathara Thilagar

Madras HC11 Sept 2014CRL RC/665/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner challenged a rejection of their motion for forensic analysis of a cheque alleged to have forged entries. The bench allowed the revision, setting aside the impugned order, and directed the lower court to send the cheque for expert examination regarding ink differences.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in C.M.P.No.1270 of 2013 is set aside; the cheque is directed to be forwarded to the Forensic Department for examination.

N.Murugesan Vs P.Balakankathara Thilagar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.665 of 2014

¶6

N.Murugesan … Petitioner

¶7

vs. P.Balakankathara Thilagar … Respondent

¶8

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.M.P.No.1270 of 2013 in C.C.No.126 of 2013 dated 16.04.2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC, Alandur and revise the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent.

¶11

Petitioner challenges the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur, in C.M.P.No.1270 of 2013 in C.C.No.126 of 2013, on 16.04.2014.

¶12

Petitioner is the accused in case arising out of a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Informing that the signature upon the cheque, which has given rise to an action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and writings thereof were of different ink, the petitioner has filed C.M.P.No.1270 of 2013 in C.C.No.126 of 2013 towards forwarding Ex.P1, Cheque, to the Forensic Department for obtaining expert opinion. The Court below, under the impugned order, has dismissed the petition on the reasoning that such petition was filed only to protract the proceedings. It has further reasoned that as the petitioner has not disputed the signature, the contention that the contents in the cheque were filled up by someone else was not acceptable since the same may be filled up by anyone.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

On perusal of the papers, this Court finds that the petitioner's petition has not received proper appreciation. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there were business dealings between the petitioner and respondent/complainant and towards security, the respondent/complainant had obtained cheques in blank. It is his further case that the dealings between the petitioner and the respondent ceased more than two years prior to the complaint and that a false case has been foisted by the respondent by filling up the cheque. In the circumstances, the question whether the signature upon the cheque and writings thereof were of different inks is an important one. When cross-examined, the respondent had claimed no knowledge regards the writing of the cheque and signature there upon being of different inks. A forensic expert would be able to ascertain if the writings upon a document were of different inks.

¶15

Given the nature of case and contention of the petitioner, and the answer of the respondent in cross-examination, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed.

¶16

This Criminal Revision is allowed. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur, in C.M.P.No.1270 of 2013 in C.C.No.126 of 2013, on 16.04.2014, is set aside. The Court below is directed to forward the cheque to Forensic Department for the purpose of examination and filing a report as to whether the signature and the writings on the cheque were of different inks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Asst.Registrar (Lok adalat) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar kpr/gm To

¶18

The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur.

¶19

1 cc to Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Advocate, SR. 43425

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.665 of 2014

¶21

KGK (CO) kk 11/12

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Murugesan v. P.Balakankathara Thilagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Murugesan v. P.Balakankathara Thilagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anandan @ Douglas Devananda Vs the Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs Kalaiselvi

Sivashankar Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ganesan Vs P.Thangavel

J.Murugan Vs Sumathi

M/S.Sea Queen Shipping Vs P.Gopalakrishnan