Dismissed¶54

E.Natarajan v. Chithra

Madras HC11 Nov 2025CRL A/155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act; appeal against acquittal; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; benefit of doubt; post-dated cheque; cash receipt Ex.P1 torn green sheet with gap before signature; contradiction between proof affidavit and cross-examination on filling of date and amount; corroborating witness discrepancy (Tamil handwritten vs typewritten English receipt; Rs.3,00,000/- vs Rs.2,00,000/-); DW-1 Vijaya sale agreement and suit for specific performance; chit transaction Rs.90,000/-; Madras High Court; Crl.A.No.155 of 2022; E.Natarajan v. Chithra; Judicial Magistrate Vaniyambadi; S.T.C.No.30 of 2019; acquittal not disturbed.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court's finding that the accused's defence was probable, and its grant of benefit of doubt, could not be upturned in an appeal against acquittal; finding no merits, the appeal stands dismissed. ¶54

E.Natarajan Vs Chithra — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court (defence held probable, benefit of doubt granted) could be upturned in this appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The complainant went back on his categorical case (statutory notice, complaint and proof affidavit) that on the date of borrowal itself the accused had issued the post-dated cheque duly filled with date and amount; in cross-examination he stated the date and amount in the cheque were filled by someone else and that he did not hand over the cheque personally.

¶45

Key takeaways

Ex.P1, the cash receipt, was physically suspect: a green sheet torn into two, with the accused's signature in the lower half and a gap between the typed content and the signature.ratio¶48
Kumar, examined to corroborate PW-1 (called 'DW-2' in this passage though recorded as PW-2 earlier), deposed that Ex.P1 was handwritten in Tamil while it is typewritten in English, and that he had paid Rs.3,00,000/- to PW-1, whereas PW-1's case was that he got Rs.2,00,000/- from PW-2 in cash.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., 11.11.2025) dismisses Crl.A.No.155 of 2022, an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by complainant E.Natarajan against the acquittal (08.10.2021, S.T.C.No.30 of 2019, Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi) of accused Chithra under Section 138 NI Act. Alleged borrowal of Rs.10,00,000/- cash on 20.03.2017 with a post-dated cheque dated 27.08.2018 later dishonoured. Grounds relied on by this Court: (i) the complainant's cross-examination contradicted his proof affidavit that the cheque bore date and amount filled in on the date of borrowal; (ii) Ex.P1 cash receipt was a green sheet torn into two with a gap between the typed content and the accused's signature; (iii) corroborating witness Kumar deposed the receipt was handwritten in Tamil though typewritten in English, and paid Rs.3,00,000/- against PW-1's Rs.2,00,000/- case; (iv) DW-1 Vijaya admitted a sale agreement and suit for specific performance, her loan being apart from the sale consideration, and Rs.90,000/- returned by the accused's husband being a chit-related payment apart from Rs.2,00,000/-. The trial Court's benefit-of-doubt finding being probable, the appellate court declined to upturn it in an appeal against acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 11.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022

¶7

E.Natarajan

¶8

... Appellant / Complainant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Chithra

¶11

... Respondent / Accused

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi in S.T.C.No.30 of 2019, convicting the respondent / accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and direct him to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the appellant / complainant thereby compound the offence or in the alternative, sentence her to undergo imprisonment.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.J.Ramesh

¶14

For Respondent : No appearance

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022

¶19

This appeal is filed as against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi dated 08.10.2021 made in S.T.C No.30 of 2019. By the

¶20

said judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶21

2.This is a private complaint filed by the appellant / complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶22

3.The case of the complainant is that on 20.03.2017 for his personal expenses and for his business purposes i.e., for expansion of his poultry, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and agreed to repay within a period of 17 months. On the same day, the accused also signed a receipt for receiving the said amount and while repayment of the amount, he gave a postdated cheque by dating the cheque as 27.08.2018. Accordingly, when the cheque was deposited for collection, the same returned dishonoured. When a statutory notice was issued, no amount was paid, but the accused issued a reply notice with false particulars and hence the complaint was filed.

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022

¶26

4.Upon recording sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file and

¶27

upon issuance of summons and furnishing of copies, the accused was questioned, the accused denied the allegations and stood trial.

¶28

5.In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and one Kumar, the brother-in-law of the complainant was examined as PW-2. The cash receipt was marked as Ex.P1. The subject matter of cheque was marked as Ex.P2. The memo of dishonour was marked as Ex.P3. The legal notice was marked as Ex.P4. The acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.P5. The reply notice was marked as Ex.P6.

¶29

6.Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating evidence on record as false and thereafter, the accused examined one Vijaya as DW-1 and one Murthy as DW-2.

¶30

7.The trial Court considering the discrepancies in the case of the complainant and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence held that

¶31

3/8

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022 the defence of the accused that she had given the signature and also blank cheque with Vijaya in respect of a borrowal and that inspite of repaying the amount, by using the documents given, a suit for specific performance is filed and the blank cheque is handed over to the complainant as probable and given the benefit of doubt to the accused.

¶34

8.Mr.J.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant / complainant would submit that on the date of borrowal a receipt has been duly signed by the accused. PW- 2 was witnessing the incident, also signed the receipt. But however, it is the accused who said that the said signature was not necessary and with the same pen, she only struck off the signature of PW-2. Therefore, the trial Court erred in rejecting the cash receipt in Ex.P1. The cheque has been duly presented and the dishonour memo has been marked. Merely because, in the memo of dishonour, the date is wrongly typed as 28.08.2018 instead of 27.08.2018, the trial Court also finds fault with the same. Otherwise, the complainant has duly proved the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has advanced the amount as cash and the accused duly issued the cheque. When Vijaya was examined as 4/8

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022 defence witness, she has categorically denied the theory as put forth by the accused. DW-2, Murthy, has been duly cross examined and he categorically admitted that he is good friend of the husband of the accused and he came along with them and he also spoke with them before adducing evidence. Therefore, DW-2 evidence has totally been discredited on behalf of the complainant.

¶37

9.In the above background, the trial Court ought to have convicted the

¶38

accused and ordered the cheque amount as compensation to the appellant.

¶39

10.I have considered the said submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 11.It is the categorical case of the complainant, in the statutory notice, the

¶40

complaint and the proof affidavit that on the date of borrowal itself the accused had issued the postdated cheque by duly filling up the date and the amount in the cheque. The following averments made in the proof affidavit is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶41

“nkYk; nkw;go 20/03/2017k; njjpna vjphp nkw;go flDf;F Kd;njjpapl;l vjphpapd; t';fp fzf;fpUf;Fk; fpUc&;zfphp. fU:h; itc&;ah t';fpapd; fhnrhiy vz;/000108?id

¶42

U:/10.00.000-?f;F 27/08/2018k; njjpapl;L g{h;j;jp bra;J vd;dplk; bfhLj;J nkw;go fhnrhiyia 27/08/2018k; njjp t';fpapy; brYj;jp gzkhf;fpf; bfhs;SkhW Twpdhh;/”

¶43

5/8

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022 12.But in the cross examination, the complainant has gone back and has

¶46

stated as follows:

¶47

“brf;fpy; cs;s njjp kw;Wk; mjpy; epwg;g;l;Ls;s tptu';fs; ahuhy; vGjg;gl;lJ vd;why; vjphpahy; epwg;gl;lJ Mfk;/ fhnrhiyapy; bjhifapy; epug;gl;lLs;s bjhif cs;s vz;fSf;Fk; njjpapy; cs;s vz;zfSf;Fk; ntWghL cs;sjh vd;why; mJgw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ/ vjphp fhnrhiyapy; ifbahg;gj;Jld; njjp nghl;LbfhLj;jhuh vd;why; ifbahg;gk; kl;Lk; jhd; bra;jhh; njjp nghltpy;iy/”

¶48

13.Secondly, upon peruing Ex.P1, it can be seen that, a green sheet has

¶49

been tore into two and in the lower half, the signature of the accused is there and there is gap between the typed content and the signature.

¶50

14.Thirdly, when DW-2 Kumar was examined to corroborate the evidence of PW-1 complainant, firstly, he would depose that Ex.P1 was handwritten in Tamil while the same is typed written in English. Secondly, he would further depose that he had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to PW-1. Whereas, the case of PW-1 is that he got Rs.2,00,000/- from PW-2 in cash. He was having the balance and handed over to the accused.

¶51

6/8

¶52

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

¶53

Crl.A.No.155 of 2022 15.Finally, even the Vijaya with whom the accused claims to have transaction, when she was examined as DW-1 admits that there was a sale agreement and she has filed a suit for specific performance. She also states that the loan that was advanced by her is apart from the said sale consideration and Rs.90,000/- which was returned by the husband of the accused is apart from Rs.2,00,000/- relating to a chit transactions.

¶54

16.Taking all the above into account, when the trial Court had considered the defence of the accused as probable and has granted the benefit of doubt, I am unable to upturn the said finding in an appeal against acquittal and accordingly, finding no merits, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶55

11.11.2025

¶56

smv

¶57

Neutral citation : Yes/No To:

¶58

The Judicial Magistrate Court, Vaniyambadi.

¶59

7/8

¶60

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