IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.8091 of 2007 and Crl.R.C.No.379 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1+1 of 2007 and 1+1 of 2008 S.Duraisamy ..Petitioner in Crl.O.P. and Crl.R.C. -Vs- 1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Salem (Crime No.28/2006) ..1st Respondent in Crl.O.P. 2. N.N.Dhanasekaran ..2nd Respondent in Crl.O.P. and Sole Respondent in Crl.R.C. Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.8091 of 2007: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Attur to send the original cheque bearing No.142790 being subject matter of STC.No.1170 of 2006 to the Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai for comparison and opinion on the aspects sought for by the 1st respondent. Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.379 of 2007: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the order dated 06.02.2007 made in C.M.P.112 of 2002 in S.T.C.No.1170 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court I, Attur and to set aside the same and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Attur to try S.T.C.No.1170 of 2006 under chapter XX of Cr.P.C. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivelmurugan For Respondent 1 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr.T.Murugamanikkam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E R In Crl.O.P.No.8091 of 2007, the petitioner seeks a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Attur to send the original cheque bearing No.142790 being subject matter of STC.No.1170 of 2006 to the Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai for comparison and opinion on the aspects sought for by the 1st respondent. 2.The petitioner informs that the 1st respondent police had filed a petition before the lower Court towards examination of the cheque in question in the said case by an expert at Chennai for opinion as regards the age of the ink found in the cheque or whether any alteration has been made, whether the signature of the complainant is true, whether the ink of the signature and the writing in words and figures are one and the same and whether the ink used to write the date of the Cheque and signature of the complainant is one and the same. Such petition was dismissed by the lower Court on 02.03.2007 informing that the cheque can be examined at Court and that the same could not be sent out of the Court. As against such order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3.The order of the lower Court is to the effect that it would be for the expert to come to the Court and examine the cheque and it is on such reasoning that the petition filed by the 1st respondent has been dismissed. 4.I find no error in the order of the lower Court. It also is informed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the request for examination by expert was made by the 1st respondent police in connection with Crime No.28 of 2006 registered for offence under Section 420 IPC on the complaint of the petitioner herein that the 2nd respondent had dealt wrongfully with the cheque issued by the petitioner. It is now informed that after investigation the action in such case stands dropped. Such is an additional reason for not entertaining the present Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner. 5.In Crl.R.C.No.379 of 2007, the petitioner challenges the order of the lower Court refusing to try S.T.C.No.1170 of 2006 before it under Chapter XX Cr.P.C i.e., to follow the procedure for trial of summons case by Magistrate. The attempt of the petitioner has been to avoid the summary trial procedure contemplated in Chapter XXI Cr.P.C. 6.The photostat copy of the cheque giving rise to the complaint of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been produced before this Court. The primary contention of the petitioner that a cheque issued by him in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has malafidely been altered to one of Rs.10,00,000/- stands belied on a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bare perusal thereof. Sum of Rs.10,00,000/- stands clearly written not merely in figures but also in words. 7.In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the summary trial procedure is followed. 8.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition and the Criminal Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 9.The learned counsel for the respondent informs that the case has been pending before the lower Court for a long time and prays that a direction be issued for early disposal of the case. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the case before it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Attur. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Vadivel Murugan, Advocate. S.R.No.23550. + 1 c.c. to Mr. T. Murugamanikkam, Advocate. S.R.No.22782. Crl.O.P.No.8091 of 2007 and Crl.R.C.No.379 of 2007 SJ (CO) GSK 21.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/