Disposed

Dhanasekaran v. Revathi

Madras HC28 Aug 2024CRL OP/20788/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A complainant whose private complaint on a hand loan repaid by cheque ended in acquittal sought leave to appeal. Counsel argued the trial court wrongly doubted the cheque signature and ignored the absence of any explanation for the cheque reaching the petitioner. Judge granted leave.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file criminal appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal and post it for admission if otherwise in order.

Dhanasekaran Vs Revathi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20788 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.41562 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.20788 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.41562 of 2024

¶3

M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J.

¶4

The petitioner as complainant filed a private complaint against the respondents before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, which was taken on file as C.C.No.17 of 2023. The Trial Court by judgment dated 20.06.2024 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. Against which, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking leave to file an appeal.

¶5

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondent are family friends and neighbours from the year 2021. On the request of respondent, hand loan was given by the petitioner. In discharge of the same, signed cheque handed over by the respondent. The primary contention of the respondent is that the respondent used to sign in English but in the cheque the signature is found in Tamil. Hence, the issuance of cheque in discharge of the liability is doubtful. Initially, the respondent filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in C.M.P.No.8110 of 2023 to examine handwriting expert but later coming to Page No.1 of 4

¶6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.20788 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.41562 of 2024

¶8

know that the defence would expose filed a memo to withdraw the petition and further referring that the trial Court itself invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can verify the documents. She further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in number of cases held that it is dangerous for the Court below to take the role of expert and study the disputed handwriting. Though such power is granted, it is better such power is used only in extraordinary situation not in regular course. In this case, the Trial Court on that ground and the evidence of DW1 had dismissed the complaint. The accused had not given any reason how the cheque came to the possession of the petitioner which fact not considered by the Trial Court.

¶9

3.Finding reason in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave granted.

¶10

4.The Registry is directed to number the appeal and post for

¶11

Page No.2 of 4

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

Crl.O.P.No.20788 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.41562 of 2024

¶14

admission, if it is otherwise in order.

29.08.2024

vv2

Page No.3 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.20788 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.41562 of 2024

¶20

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶21

vv2

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.20788 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.41562 of 2024

¶23

28.08.2024

¶24

Page No.4 of 4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dhanasekaran v. Revathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanasekaran v. Revathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The India Cements Ltd., Vs M.S.Traders

G.P.Dhevikala Vs G.Manikandan

Ajithkumar Vs State Rep by

Anbu Juliet Vs R.K.Dayal

Devarajan Vs Divya

M/S. Venkatesh Coke and Power Ltd. Vs M/S.Mesuka Engineering Co.Pvt Ltd.