1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.272 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 M.Selvarani ... Revision Petitioner/Accused Vs. T.K.Sins ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the entire records in Crl.M.P.No.887 of 2008 in S.T.C.No.92 of 2006 on the file of Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Theni and set aside the order dated 18.01.2011. For petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian O R D E R By consent, the Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.92 of 2006 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Theni and the present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the vires of the order made in Cr.M.P.No.887 of 2008 filed under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque in question for expert opinion. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is variance in the signature of the accused in the promissory note and letter marked as Exs.P.1 and 2 in S.T.C.No.78 of 2006 and in order to substantiate his defence he filed Cr.M.P.No.887 of 2008 to send the cheque in question for expert opinion and the same has been dismissed by the lower Court without assigning proper reason. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused prays for setting aside the order dated 18.01.2011 and to sent the cheque in question for expert opinion. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the complaint was filed on 29.03.2006 and the examination of complainant's side witnesses were over on 14.09.2007 and thereafter, the defence side witnesses were examined and exhibits were also marked. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant that admittedly the revision petitioner/accused has taken out a similar petition on 05.09.2008 and it was dismissed on 11.11.2008 as not pressed and subsequently, she filed this petition on 25.11.2008 for similar relief. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent/ complainant that the lower Court by assigning proper and sufficient reasons has rightly dismissed the petition and no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its powers under revisional jurisdiction. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned order. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the revision petitioner/accused did not dispute his signature in the cheque in question and on finding that his signature in the documents marked in S.T.C.No.78 of 2006 are in variance with the cheque in question, filed the present petition. This Court has also perused the deposition copy of P.W.1/complainant. It would disclose that the respondent/accused cross- examined P.W.1 by suggesting that the blank cheque signed by him has been misused for filing the present complaint. Since the revision petitioner did not dispute his signature in the cheque in question, it cannot be stated that the reasons assigned by the Court below for dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act are unsustainable. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that he has also filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in S.T.C.No.78 of 2006 to send the cheque along with the documents marked therein and it was dismissed and the revision petitioner/accused is taking steps to prefer revision. 8. Be that as it may, since the reasons assigned by the trial Court for dismissing the petition, in the considered opinion of the Court are proper and tenable, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. However, it is always open to the lower Court to exercise its jurisdiction in terms of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To: 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Theni. Copy To: The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.272 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 27.06.2011 sj RJ/7.7.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/