CRL OP(MD)/23607/2026 of Balamurugan Vs Sureshkumar on 10 November 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the accused in C.C.Nos.508 and 509 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, which arise out of the complaints lodged by the respondent under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant in C.C.No.508 of 2019, in brief, is that the petitioner/accused had issued three cheques, each for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, dated 04.03.2019, drawn on Axis Bank, Bypass Road Branch, Madurai. When presented for collection, the cheques were returned dishonoured on 11.04.2019. The complainant thereupon issued a statutory notice on 08.05.2019, which was served on the accused on 09.05.2019. Despite receipt of the same, the accused neither sent a reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. The complaint in C.C.No.509 of 2019 rests on similar facts. It is alleged that the accused had issued three more cheques, each for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, dated 08.04.2019, in favour of the complainant, and that the same were also returned dishonoured on 11.04.2019. The statutory notice dated 08.05.2019 was served on the accused on 09.05.2019. Notwithstanding the same, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount. Hence, the complaint.

4. During the cross-examination of the complainant, the accused put forth a suggestion that the statutory notice was never received by him and that the signature found in the postal acknowledgment card is entirely different from his signature in the cheques. It was further suggested that the accused had issued stop-payment instructions to his banker on 19.02.2016, on the ground that the six cheques in dispute had been taken away by the complainant.

5. Pursuant to the said suggestions, the accused filed M.P.No.29 of 2026 in C.C.No.508 of 2019 under Section 348 of BNSS, seeking to summon the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Bypass Road Branch, Madurai, and the Post Master, Thirunagar Post Office, Madurai, as defence witnesses. He also filed M.P.No.30 of 2026 in the same case under Section 94 of BNSS, seeking a direction to the RMS Post Office to produce the records relating to postal article No.RT712493500IN, so as to ascertain whether the said article was served on him or was returned undelivered.

6. M.P.Nos.26 and 27 of 2026 were filed in C.C.No.509 of 2019 with identical prayers. By orders dated 22.09.2026, the trial Court dismissed all the four applications. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present petitions. Since the issues involved are common, the petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, by way of suggestion during cross-examination, the petitioner has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant to advance such a huge sum, and hence the examination of the Bank Manager has become all the more necessary. It is further contended that the signature found in the acknowledgment cards does not tally with the signature of the petitioner in the disputed cheques, and that a suggestion to that effect has already been put to the complainant in cross-examination. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Post Master concerned ought to be summoned and the records relating to the service of the registered post ought to be called for from the Post Office. The learned counsel would further contend that the trial Court has mechanically rejected the applications by merely accepting the contentions of the complainant, without assigning any independent reasons, and would pray for allowing these petitions.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that both the complaints have been pending for nearly seven years and have already undergone as many as 128 hearings. It is submitted that the petitioner could very well have obtained the documents from the Post Office and from Axis Bank and placed them before the trial Court, and that summoning the two officials is wholly unnecessary. With regard to the dispute over the signature in the acknowledgment card, it is pointed out that such a plea is being raised for the first time, after a lapse of seven years. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another, reported in 2007 Crl.L.J. 3214, particularly paragraph 17 thereof, wherein it has been held that a drawer who claims not to have received the notice sent by post may, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the Court, make payment of the cheque amount; and that, having failed to do so, he cannot thereafter contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the teeth of the statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. Insofar as the application filed under Section 94 of BNSS is concerned, the trial Court has observed that it was always open to the petitioner to approach the Bank Manager and the Post Office concerned and obtain the documents himself. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever applied to the Bank or the Post Office for copies of those documents and that such a request was either rejected or left unanswered. That apart, the application has been filed after a lapse of seven years. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 94 of BNSS.

11. Coming to the contention that the signature in the acknowledgment card differs from that in the cheques and that, consequently, there was no proper service of the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 348 of BNSS would clearly show that the petitioner has not disputed the signature found in the acknowledgment card. The only prayer made therein is to call for the records from the Post Office for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the registered post was served on him or was returned. It is also seen that the complainant has produced the original acknowledgment cards along with the complaints, and both the cards bear the signature of the petitioner as well as the seal of the Post Office concerned. In any event, it is always open to the trial Court to invoke Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and compare the disputed signature on its

own. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraphs 10 to 12 of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin @ Pappu and another, reported in 2026 INSC 1085, which read as follows:- “10. This Court is of the view that the law gives discretion to the Court concerned to form an opinion as to whether it would itself compare the signatures on its own or seek an expert opinion.

11. This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court. Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light.

12. Furthermore, what was disputed and compared in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530, was a finger impression and not a handwriting or signature. This Court is therefore of the view that the observation of this Court at paragraph no. 16 of judgment in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530 cannot be read to mean that it is essential to examine an expert witness in all cases which involve a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression.

12. In the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is manifest that the mere fact that the petitioner disputes the signature does not, by itself, necessitate reference to an expert. The trial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:11:49 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23607 to 23610 of 2026 Court has the discretion to compare the signatures on its own under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served by summoning the Post Master or calling for the records from the Post Office.

Conclusion:-

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RJR

To The learned Judicial Magistrate No-I,

Dindigul District.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. RJR Pre delivery order made in CRL OP(MD) Nos. 23607 to 23610 of 2026 10.11.2026