CRL OP/26456/2026 of Fredrick Duraisamy Vs Sharmil Moses on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 68230 of 2024 in C.C. No. 13205 of 2014, on the file the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 94 of BNSS, seeking production of certain documents, including the original diary entry bearing the disputed signature of the complainant, for the purpose of obtaining an expert opinion.

2. The petitioner had lodged a private complaint as against the respondent, and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.12305 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC, alleging that the respondent had lodged a false complaint on 03.09.2012 by forging the petitioner's signature and fabricating documents as if the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.23.5 lakhs. In this regard, the petitioner also lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police. During the course of the enquiry, the Inspector of Police, G.3 Crime Police Station, forwarded the disputed signatures found in the documents, along with the admitted signature of the petitioner, for forensic examination. Based on the forged and fabricated documents, the respondent had also lodged a complaint against the petitioner, pursuant to which a case was registered in Crime No. 869 of 2012. Upon

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

completion of investigation a final report submitted by the police, and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 8436 of 2017, which is also pending on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3. After examination of the defence witness in C.C. No. 13205 of 2014, the accused filed a petition seeking to call for the documents annexed thereto, containing the admitted signature of the complainant, for comparison with the disputed signature found in the acknowledgment allegedly issued by the complainant acknowledging receipt of Rs.23.5 lakhs from the accused. The learned trial Court allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Upon perusal of the records and consideration of the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the petitioner herein had lodged a complaint against the respondent, specifically alleging that the respondent had forged his signature and fabricated a document as though the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.23.5 lakhs in cash. By relying upon the said document, the respondent had lodged a complaint against the petitioner, pursuant to which a case was registered and, upon submission of the final report, the learned trial Court took

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC in C.C. No. 8436 of 2017. In these circumstances, the petitioner had initiated the private complaint alleging that the respondent had forged his signature, fabricated an acknowledgment and lodged a false complaint against him. On the side of the complainant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined, and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, and no documents were marked. The evidence on both sides was closed as early as on 02.08.2024. It is further seen that, in the connected police case in C.C. No. 8436 of 2017, the learned trial Court has not pronounced its judgment so far.

6. At this stage, the accused filed a petition under Section 94 of the BNSS, seeking to call for 10 documents bearing the petitioner's signatures for the purpose of forwarding them to the Forensic Science Department to obtain an opinion from a handwriting expert. However, the said documents had already been marked as Ex. P5 through P.W.2. The forensic expert was examined as P.W.2 and categorically deposed that the disputed diary entry had been written by the accused and that the signature appearing therein was not that of the petitioner. The expert was also subjected to an elaborate cross-examination by the accused. It is further seen that the disputed diary entry, along with 40 specimen signatures, including a contemporaneous signature of the year 2019, had already been forwarded to the Government Forensic Science Department for expert examination. In such circumstances, the filing of the present petition

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

to summon the documents once again, after the examination and cross- examination of the forensic expert, appears to be an attempt to protract the proceedings rather than to bring any further material evidence on record.

7. The report of the Government Forensic Department dated 05.11.2015 states that no opinion could be rendered with regard to the very documents now sought to be summoned. Subsequently, the petitioner herein produced the admitted signatures of the respondent, along with the disputed diary entry, and forwarded the same to the Government Forensic Laboratory in July 2022. However, as per the report dated 30.01.2023, no definite opinion could be furnished. Thereafter, a representative of the Government Forensic Department was summoned and examined by the Court in this regard. In these circumstances, the petitioner engaged P.W.2, who holds a postgraduate qualification in Criminology and Forensic Science, had served in the Government Forensic Department for 30 years, retired as an Assistant Director of the Department, and was appointed as a Forensic Expert by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

8. For the purpose of examining the disputed document, the petitioner furnished photocopies of the relevant documents, including a copy of the respondent's complaint and seven other documents bearing the petitioner's signatures from the period between 2000 and 2010. Based on his examination,

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

P.W.2 opined that the petitioner had neither signed nor written the disputed diary entry. His report was marked as Ex. P5 through P.W.2. In view of the above, the petitioner has already adduced expert evidence in support of his case, and the expert has been subjected to cross-examination by the respondent. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the previous forensic examination, the report of P.W.2 and the stage at which the application was filed before permitting the respondent to summon the ten documents once again. The order allowing the application, without adequately considering these circumstances, suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 68230 of 2024 in C.C. No. 13205 of 2014 is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the cases in C.C. Nos. 13205 of 2014 and 8436 of 2017 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vrc

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

To The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. vrc Order in CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026 14-10-2026

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

Crl.O.P No.26456 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J This matter is listed today under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain inadvertent errors have crept into the order dated 14.10.2026 passed in Crl.O.P No.26456 of 2026, namely: (i) the respondent’s name has been incorrectly mentioned as Sharmil Moses instead of Sharmila Moses, in the cause title;

(ii) in paragraph No.2, the case number has been incorrectly mentioned as “C.C No.12305 of 2014 instead of C.C No.13205 of 2014 and; iii) in the tenth line of paragraph No.6, the year has been incorrectly mentioned as “2019” instead of “2009”. Hence, he prays to rectify the defects.

3. In view of the above, the following corrections shall be carried out in the order dated 14.10.2026 passed in Crl.O.P No.26456 of 2026: “i) In the cause title, “Sharmil Moses shall be read as “Sharmila Moses”.

ii) in paragraph No.2, “C.C No.12305 of 2014 shall be read as “C.C No.13205 of 2014 “

iii) In the tenth line of paragraph No.6, “2019” shall be read as “2009”.

CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. Uma

4. In all other aspects, the earlier order passed by this Court dated 14.10.2026, shall remain unaltered. 27.10.2026 uma Note: Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue order copy afresh. CRL OP No. 26456 of 2026 27-10-2026