Dismissed¶36

V.Bharath v. M.Suresh

Madras HC16 Jul 2025CRL RC(MD)/752/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024; CRL MP(MD)No.8073 of 2024; S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 (District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai); Section 45 Indian Evidence Act expert opinion; Ex.B1 signature; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque case; revision under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS, 2023; Rs. 5,00,000/- loan vs Rs. 1,00,000/- claim; signature not denied; L. Victoria Gowri, J.; decided 16.07.2025; revision dismissed with six-month trial-completion direction.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the petitioner; revision dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial in S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible within six months from receipt of copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CRL MP(MD)No.8073 of 2024) closed. ¶36

V.Bharath Vs M.Suresh — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to send Ex.B1 notice for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, given the petitioner's contention that it would expose the different stands taken by the complainant at different times. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Finding no demerit in the Trial Court's order, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court rightly observed that Ex.B1 notice has nothing to do with the cheque issued by the petitioner in the name of the complainant; the transactions are independent of each other.

¶31

Key takeaways

Since the signature in Ex.B1 was not denied by the complainant, the Trial Court rightly concluded that sending Ex.B1 for expert opinion would not serve the purpose of adjudicating S.T.C.No.466 of 2021.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024) by the accused in S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act case) against rejection of his application under Section 45, Indian Evidence Act seeking expert opinion on his signature in Ex.B1 — the complainant's personal notice dated 30.03.2021 demanding return of Rs.5,00,000/- said to have been transferred to the petitioner's account. Held, dismissing the revision (L. Victoria Gowri, J., Madurai Bench, 16.07.2025): the Trial Court rightly found Ex.B1 relates to a completely independent transaction having nothing to do with the cheque transaction for which cognizance was taken (cheque allegedly issued for Rs. 5,00,000/- borrowed in person, per advocate notice dated 23.04.2021); further, the signature in Ex.B1 was not denied by the complainant himself, so sending Ex.B1 for expert opinion would not serve the adjudication of S.T.C.No.466 of 2021. No demerit in the Trial Court's order dated 19.07.2024; trial directed to conclude within six months; connected petition closed; no costs.

¶1

CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

CRL MP(MD)No.8073 of 2024

V.Bharath

... Petitioner

Vs.

M.Suresh ... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 19.07.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur, Madurai.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.V.M.Jegadeesha Pandian

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum

¶18

Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 dated 19.07.2024, this Criminal Revision Petition is

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024

¶22

filed.

¶23

2.The claim of the petitioner is that on 30.03.2021, the respondent herein i.e., complainant in S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 issued a notice personally, seeking to return an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was transferred directly by him to the account of the petitioner herein, in which he had made his signature. Further a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, came to be filed by the respondent herein based on an advocate notice dated 23.04.2021, issued on behalf of the respondent, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in person, for which the petitioner herein had issued a cheque. Hence, the petitioner had filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2024 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, seeking to sent Ex.B1 notice, in which the petitioner had made his signature for expert opinion. However, the learned Trial Court observing that the transaction elaborated in notice dated 30.03.2021, is completely an independent transaction and it has nothing to do with the transaction for which cognizance under S.T.C.No.466 of 2021 is taken and the same is with respect to Rs.5,00,000/-, which was received by the petitioner herein in hand in person, for which the petitioner had also issued a cheque. Since both the transactions are independent of each other, even if Ex.B1 is sent for expert opinion that will not help the case of the petitioner to absolve him from liability which is cast on him, by

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024

¶27

the complaint lodged by the respondent herein.

¶28

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the petition for the same would facilitate the Court to prove the different stands taken by the complainant in different period of time. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only was borrowed by the petitioner herein, for which he has filed a case seeking Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶29

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that in the cross examination of the petitioner herein, the petitioner has himself admitted the signature in the cheque in question and that the question of sending the notice Ex.B1 will not serve the purpose of the petitioner's case and pressed for dismissal of the Revision Case.

¶30

5.Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶31

6.This Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that Ex.B1 notice has nothing to do with the cheque issued by the petitioner in the name of the complainant. That apart, the learned

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

CRL RC(MD)No.752 of 2024

¶35

Trial Court has also properly recorded the fact that the signature in Ex.B1 has not been denied by the complainant himself. In that case, the learned Trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the purpose of sending Ex.B1 notice will not serve the purpose of adjudicating S.T.C.No.466 of 2021.

¶36

7.Hence, I do not find any demerit in the order passed by the learned Trial Court and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

16.07.2025

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mrn

¶39

¶40