R.Paneerselvam v. Manikandabhoopathy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN & Crl.M.P.No.792 of 2026 1.Mr.R.Paneerselvam 2.M/s.Arulmigu Uruman Kulam Panirupadi Ayyan Medical and Educational Charitable Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee and chairman Mr.R.Paneerselvam No.43, Sarangapai Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

...

Petitioners Vs.

Mr.Manikandabhoopathy ...

Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS Act, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1688 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.117 of 2024.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravishankar 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed in Crl.M.P. 1688 of 2025 dismissing the petitioner's application seeking for a direction to determine the age of the ink of the impugned cheque, as according to the petitioner, the contents of the cheque were filled up in the year 2022, whereas, the signature of the cheque was made in the year 2011. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had given the cheque as security in the year 2011 and not in the year 2022 as claimed by the respondent.

3.The learned Magistrate found that the forensic examination relating to determination of age of the ink is not conclusive and therefore, it is for the petitioner to establish the fact that he is not liable to pay the cheque amount by other means.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the science relating to determination of the age of the ink has developed and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner ought to have been accepted by the learned Magistrate.

2/4

5.It is seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate has referred to the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.691 of 2022, wherein this Court held that it not possible to find the age of the ink by an expert. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. It is for the petitioner to establish before the trial Court that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability by other means.

6.Therefore, the Revision is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Tsg To The XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai 3/4

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Tsg & Crl.M.P.No.792 of 2026 28.01.2026 4/4