S.Velmurugan, Aged 47 Years, v. K.Senthilkumar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 25.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.199 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.1802 of 2018 S.Velmurugan ...

Petitioner Vs K.Senthilkumar ... Respondent PRAYER:

Criminal Revision Case filed under Article 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.T.C.No-I, Erode and made in C.M.P.No.6890 of 2017 in S.T.C.No.334 of 2017 dated 18.01.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran

O R D E R

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.T.C.No-I, Erode made in C.M.P.No.6890 of 2017 in S.T.C.No.334 of 2017 dated 18.01.2018.

2 The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No-I, Erode, in S.T.C.No.334 of 2017. During the pendency of the S.T.C., the revision petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No-I, Erode, in C.M.P.Nos.6890 & 6891 of 2017 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the cheque to Forensic lab for getting expert opinion and compare the signature found in the cheque was in the bank account opening form. The said petitions were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No-I, Erode. As against the said dismissal order, the revision petitioner filed a present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

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

4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/accused gave cheque to one Sathyamoorthy not to the respondent/complainant, the said Sathyamoorthy misused the cheque and filed a complaint through this complainant/respondent. Therefore, it is found that the petitioner has admitted the signature in which the cheque was not given to the present respondent/complainant but which was given to one Sathyamoorthy. Therefore once he has admitted the signature and there is no need to send it for forensic department for comparison. The petitioner/accused has to prove that the cheque was not given to the complainant/respondent and it is given to one Sathyamoorthy. The said Sathyamoorthy set up the present complainant to file a complaint, this is a matter of the evidence and proof. There is no need to send the cheque to the forensic department to get an expert opinion. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that the petitioner/accused admitted the signature and dismissed the petition.

5 Therefore, this Court find that there is no infirmity and perversity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Erode. There is no merits in this Revision case. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sbn To The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No-I, Erode.

+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran , Advocate SR.No. 28331 Crl.R.C.No.199 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.1802 of 2018 A.SK(19/12/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/