Dismissed¶31

R.Mohamed Rafeek v. N.Prabhakaran

Madras HC3 Jun 2025CRL RC/634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expert opinion refused; Section 45 Indian Evidence Act application dismissed; signature comparison of Ex.D1; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint C.C.No.950 of 2021; Criminal Revision under Sections 438 and 442 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; belated production of document four years after complaint; statutory notice unanswered; petitioner silent about Ex.D1 in decreed recovery suits; application filed when complaint posted for judgment; Madras High Court revision dismissed 03.06.2025; Trial Court directed to conclude trial within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; Criminal Revision dismissed, connected Miscellaneous petition closed, and the Trial Court directed to dispose of C.C.No.950 of 2021 within four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. ¶31

R.Mohamed Rafeek Vs N.Prabhakaran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.04.2025 of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for expert opinion on Ex.D1 (passed in Crl.M.P.No.2496 of 2025 in C.C.No.950 of 2021) calls for interference in this Criminal Revision. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order/judgment passed in Crl.M.P.No.2496 of 2025 in C.C.No.950 of 2021.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Ground relied upon: Ex.D1 was produced before the Trial Court only after a period of four years from the date of filing the complaint.

¶22

Key takeaways

Ground relied upon: the petitioner never referred to Ex.D1 in any of the recovery suits filed by the respondent.ratio¶29
Ground relied upon: after receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner did not even send any reply, indicating he did not claim the invoice amount had been settled.ratio¶22
Direction: the Trial Court is to dispose of the complaint in CC.No.950 of 2021 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), CRL.R.C.No.634 of 2025 (decided 03.06.2025): A Criminal Revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenged the order dated 17.04.2025 of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, dismissing the petitioner-accused's application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.D1 for expert comparison of the respondent-complainant's signature in the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act trial in C.C.No.950 of 2021. Dismissing the revision, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the Trial Court's order, noting that Ex.D1 was produced only four years after the complaint, that the petitioner never mentioned Ex.D1 in reply to the statutory notice (no reply was sent at all) or in the respondent's recovery suits (all decreed in his favour), and that the expert-opinion request was made only when the complaint was posted for judgment. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of C.C.No.950 of 2021 within four weeks; the connected Miscellaneous petition was closed.

¶1

CRL.R.C.No.634 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.634 of 2025

¶7

and Crl.M.P.No.10230 of 2025

R.Mohamed Rafeek

... Petitioner

Vs.

N.Prabhakaran ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 17.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2496 of 2025 in C.C.No.950 of 2021 on the file of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.G.Abdul Jaleel For Respondent : Mr.N.Baskaran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order dated

¶15

17.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2496 of 2025 in C.C.No.950 of 2021 on the file of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send Ex.D1 for expert opinion by comparing the signature of

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

CRL.R.C.No.634 of 2025

¶19

the respondent with admitted signature.

¶20

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent

¶22

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.950 of 2021. During trial, the petitioner was examined as DW.1 and marked Ex.D1. The respondent had cross examined the petitioner in detail. The specific case of the respondent is that the said Ex.D1 was not issued by the respondent and also denied the signature found in Ex.D1. It is a further case of the respondent that after a period of four years from the date of filing the complaint, Ex.D1 was produced before the Trial Court. In fact, the petitioner did not even whisper about Ex.D1 by way of reply notice, on the statutory notice issued by the respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact, after receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner did not even send any reply.

¶23

If at all, the respondent had received the entire amount for the invoice

¶24

which was marked as Ex.P1, definitely the petitioner would have issued reply

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.R.C.No.634 of 2025

¶28

notice for the statutory notice caused by the respondent. That apart, already the respondent filed a suit for recovery of money under the same invoice which was marked as Ex.P1 and three other invoices and all the suits were decreed in favour of the respondent.

¶29

It is also curious to note that the petitioner did not even whisper about Ex.D1 in any of the suits filed by the respondent for recovery of money. That apart, CC is of the year 2021 and when the complaint is posted for Judgment, the petitioner filed the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking expert opinion on Ex.D1.

¶30

In view of the above, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment passed in Crl.M.P.No.2496 of 2025 in C.C.No.950 of 2021 on the file of the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the complaint, in CC.No.950 of 2021, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31