Madras High Court
CRL RC/2025/2026 of R.Narendiran Vs Renuga on 1 October 2026
CRL RC No. 2025 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2025 of 2026
& CRL MP No. 17198 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012100672026}
R.Narendiran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Renuga
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dated 07.08.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.3 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.481 of 2025 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and allow this Revision.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G.Balasubramanian
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.T.Narendiran
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Revision challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge allowing the petition filed by the respondent seeking to compare the signature in the cheque with her admitted signatures, as according to her, she had not signed the cheque.
2. The appellate Court found that the request of the respondent is genuine as the respondent had made a similar application pending trial in STC.No.3108
CRL RC No. 2025 of 2026
of 2023; that since it was rejected by the trial Court, the respondent had approached this Court in Crl.RC.No.2213 of 2024 and this Court had granted leave to the respondent to file a fresh application seeking comparison of signature before the trial Court, by the order dated 24.11.2025; that before the petitioner could file the petition, the trial Court had convicted the respondent; and therefore, allowed the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the respondent had never denied her signature in the cheque and referred to the defence of the respondent in the cross-examination of the petitioner; that the respondent had not denied the signature during the questioning under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and that the present petition filed by the respondent is only to delay the trial.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the reasons stated by the learned Judge for allowing the petition and prayed for dismissal of the Revision.
5. Admittedly, the respondent, who was facing trial in STC.No.3108 of 2023 had sought for comparison of the signature pending trial before the learned Magistrate. Since the said petition was dismissed, he had approached this Court in Crl.R.C.No.2213 of 2024 and the same was allowed by this Court by the
CRL RC No. 2025 of 2026
order dated 24.11.2025. Thereafter, it appears, before any petition was filed by the respondent, she was convicted by the trial Court. These facts are not in dispute. Pending appeal, the respondent once again renewed the request and by the impugned order, the learned appellate Judge had allowed the petition.
6. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the respondent has a right to establish her defence that she had not signed the cheque. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2025, this Court directs the Sessions Judge to complete the process of comparison of signature in a time bound manner and to conclude the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG
CRL RC No. 2025 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG To The XXII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. CRL RC No. 2025 of 2026 & CRL MP No. 17198 of 2026 01-10-2026