L.Periyasamy v. M.Selvamalar

ORDER The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari in Crl.M.P. No.1729 of 2024 in C.C.No.286 of 2019 dated 05.04.2025, whereby, the request of the petitioner under Section 39(1) of BSA for expert opinion to see if the signature contained in the subject cheques were in fact that of petitioner, was rejected.

¶2Trial Court had rejected the above request on the premise that petitioner, in reply to the legal notice issued, had not expressly stated that the signature in cheque leaf does not belong to him. Trial Court also records that in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, petitioner has not stated anywhere that the signature does not belong to him. Relevant portion of impugned order is extracted hereunder: "4(6). Nkw;gb Kd;jPHg;Gfs;> kD kw;Wk; vjpUiu kw;Wk; gpur;ridf;Fhpa

Mtzkhd

fhNrhiyia

ghprPyid nra;ifapy;> ,t;tof;fpd; GfhHjhuH kDjhuUf;F jd;dplk; thq;fpa fhNrhiy njhifia toq;Fk;gb rl;l mwptpg;G mDg;gpajw;F

fhNrhiyapy;

cs;s

ifnaOj;J jd;DilaJ

,y;iy

vd;W

vt;tpj

gjpYk; mDg;ghkYk;> ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; kDjhuhplk; ,t;tof;F Fwpj;J 313 rpMH.gprp-apd; fPo; tpdtg;gl;l NghJk; jhd;fld; thq;ftpy;iy vd;W kl;LNk gjpy; mspj;Js;shH. ,t;tof;F vjphp jug;G tprhuizf;F Nghlg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; fhNrhiyapy; cs;s ifanOj;J kw;Wk; fhNrhiyapy; G+Hj;jp nra;ag;gl;Ls;s vz;Zk;> vOj;jpy; cs;s ifnaOj;J jd;DilaJ ,y;iy vd;W Gjpa rq;fjpia $wp ,k;kDit jhf;fy; nra;jpUg;gJ Vw;W nfhs;Sk; tpjkhf ,y;iy. Nkw;gb fhNrhiy rk fhyj;jpy; vOjg;gl;l Mtzq;fs; vJTk; kDjhuH

ifnaOj;Jld;

xg;gPl;L

ghHf;f

jhf;fy; nra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;gjhy; Nkw;gb Mtzk; jlatpay; Jiwf;F ifnaOj;ij xg;gPl;L ghHf;f mDg;Gtjw;F cfe;jJ my;y vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; KbT nra;fpwJ."

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as in the reply filed by petitioner, petitioner has stated that the cheques issued to Bank were incomplete and it was never issued to respondent herein, as could be seen from the following statement: "mjd;gpd;G tq;fp fld; njhiff;F Mjuthf Ie;J fhNrhiyfs;

nfhLf;f

Ntz;Lnkd

ek;fl;rpf;fhuhplk; fUg;grhkpAk; fNzrDk; Ie;J G+Hj;jp nra;ag;glhj fhNrhiyfis ngw;Wf; nfhz;Ls;sdH."

¶4Learned counsel would also submit that in 313 Cr.P.C statement, it has been expressly stated by petitioner that he is illiterate and that the signature contained in the subject cheques do not belong to him, as could be seen from the following: "Nkw;gb nry;tuh[; mtHfs; %yk; tof;fpy; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;s fhNrhiyapy; cs;s ifnahg;gk; vd;DilaJ jhdh vd;gijAk; ehd; fhNrhiyia Nehpy; ghHj;jhy; jhd; nrhy;y KbAk;> Vnddpy; vdf;F vOjg; gbf;fj; njhpahJ ... NkYk; mjpy; cs;s ifnahg;gk; vd;DilaJ ,y;iy. Vnddpy; vdf;F gbf;fNt njhpahJ."

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent would place reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in support of his contention that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

¶6A reading of judgment in Bir Singh's case would show that even if a blank cheque leaf is issued, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment, then presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would get attracted and in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, such presumption would remain. Importantly, in the said case, it was also found as a matter of fact that it is not in dispute that the accused has signed the cheque. However, in the present case, the thrust of petitioner's arguments on facts was that petitioner had neither issued much less signed subject cheques. Therefore, the facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for respondent and the case pleaded by petitioner are factually different.

¶7Importantly, it appears that there is a complete misconception of what is contained in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C inasmuch as Trial Court proceeds on the basis that petitioner had not disowned his signature, whereas, this Court finds that in 313 Cr.P.C statement, the petitioner had expressly stated that the signature does not belong to him.

¶8In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order suffers from complete misdirection and hence, it is only just that Trial Court is directed to reconsider the petition filed by petitioner afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and respondent and to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari in Crl.M.P. No.1729 of 2024 in C.C.No.286 of 2019 dated 05.04.2025 is set aside and Trial Court is directed to reconsider the petition filed by petitioner afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and respondent and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits except finding that the impugned order suffers from infirmity in appreciating the statement contained in 313 Cr.P.C. Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari. MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

, J.

Lm

05.02.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6750 of 2025 L.Periyasamy ... Petitioner Vs. M.Selvamalar ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS), to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 05.04.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1729 of 2024 against C.C.No.286 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari and set aside the same by allowing the above Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthusamundeeswaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Shajahan