Madras High Court
Srinivasan Janakiraman vs M/S.Nava Healthcare Private Limited on 19 January, 2021
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019, 175/2019,176/2019 and 177/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019,
175/2019,176/2019 and 177/2019
Varisham Healthcare Private Limited
represented by its Directors
1.Srinivasan Janakiraman
2.J.Priya ... Petitioners in all
Crl.R.C.s
Versus
1.M/S.Nava Healthcare Private Limited
rep. by its Directors & Authorized Signatory
Mr.Hemant Kulbir Kumar Suri
ii) Mrs.Vani Suri
iii) Mr.Shivaji Joshi
2.Mr.Hemant Kulbir Kumar Suri
3.Mr.Vani Suri
4.Mrs.Shivali Joshi ... Respondents in all
Crl.R.C.s
Common Prayer : Criminal Revision petitions are filed under Section 397
r/w.401 Cr.P.C to call for the records and set aside the order dated 13.11.2018 in
C.M.P.No.1754 of 2018, C.M.P.No.1755 of 2018, C.M.P.No.1752 of 2018,
C.M.P.No.1753 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.1756 of 2018 in C.C.No.8 of 2018 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019, 175/2019,176/2019 and 177/2019
For Petitioners in all Crl.R.Cs: No appearance
For Respondents
in all Crl.R.Cs : Mr.K.V.Bashyam Chari
ORDER
The petitioner is the complainant. The respondents are the accused. The petitioner filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate cum Fast track Court, Alandur, in C.C.No.8 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of the enquiry, the respondents/accused filed C.M.P.Nos.1754, 1755, 1752, 1753 and 1756 of 2018 in C.C.No.8 of 2018 under Section 91(1) & 243(2) of Cr.P.C., r/w.Section 45, 47 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to produce the original Exs.P.4, 5, 3 and 11 to be sent for expert opinion. After enquiry, the said petitions were allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur, on the ground that respondents have disputed the signatures and therefore, challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this court.
2. There is no representation for the petitioner/complainant, even after giving several opportunities.
2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019, 175/2019,176/2019 and 177/2019
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. A perusal of the records would go to show that during the pendency of the proceedings u/s.138 of NI Act before the Magistrate, the respondents have approached the Magistrate by filing petitions u/s. 91(1) & 243(2) of Cr.P.C., r/w.Section 45, 47 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned Magistrate has observed that during the cross examination of P.W.1, Exhibits P.4 and P.5 were not issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents/accused, to which the complainant answered in negative. The petitioner/complainant has clearly stated Exs.P.4 and P.5 are genuine documents and signed by respondents/accused 2 and 3 and it is alleged by the respondents/accused that their signatures are forged by the petitioner/complainant.
5. A perusal of the materials would make it clear that the respondents/accused have disputed their signatures found in Exhibits P.2 and P.3 and therefore, they filed the petitions to seek the opinion of the expert and since the signatures are disputed, the Magistrate also allowed the petitions. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019, 175/2019,176/2019 and 177/2019
6. It is well settled proposition of law that if signatures of the parties are disputed, the execution of the document or signatures found in the documents, necessarily, they can seek permission of the court to get opinion of the experts. Therefore, the respondents also sought permission of the court by way of filing applications to send the disputed documents along with admitted documents to get opinion of the experts. Therefore, the trial court also considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the Petitions. Therefore, this court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
7. In the result, there is no merit in the Criminal Revisions. Accordingly, the Criminal Revisions are dismissed.
19.01.2021 nvsri To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019, 175/2019,176/2019 and 177/2019 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
nvsri Crl.R.C.Nos.173/2019, 174/2019, 175/2019, 176/2019 and 177/2019 19.01.2021 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/