Madras High Court
R.Arumugasamy vs / on 16 August, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.1348 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1348 of 2024
& Crl.M.P.No.11496 of 2024
1. R.Arumugasamy.
2. A.Raghuram. ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2
/versus/
The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-II, Team – XX,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondents/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS Act,
2023, to set aside the order dated 13.05.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.60400 of 2023 in
C.C.No.5237 of 2020 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate exclusive
trial of CCB cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai) & CBCID Metro
Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4 Crl.R.C.No.1348 of 2024 This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 13.05.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.60400 of 2023 in C.C.No.5237 of 2020 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate exclusive trial of CCB cases (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai) & CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The petition is filed challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Section 293 of Cr.P.C and Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act.
3. A document which is shown in the list of documents filed along with the final report was sought to be sent for comparison by the experts. The respondent police has filed counter stating that at the fag end of the trial, the accused has come forward to challenge the signature found in the declaration deed. In fact, the said declaration deed not been relied by the prosecution to prove the charges under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C against the petitioners herein.
4. The trial Court has dismissed the application stating that the prosecution has filed final report in which Serial No.8 (list of documents in final report) is the copy of the declaration deed. The original declaration deed has not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 Crl.R.C.No.1348 of 2024 been submitted along with the final report. Comparison of signature with the copy of the document is not possible. Before the execution of the declaration deed accused have issued four cheques to the defacto complainant with deceptive intention. Without stating the circumstances under which the declaration deed been created, present application to compare it will not arise.
5. The reasoning given by the trial Court that the signature in a photocopy of a document cannot be compared is in tune with the settled Principle of law and logic.
6. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bsm
To:-
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate, (CCB cases) & CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team – XX, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 Crl.R.C.No.1348 of 2024 bsm Crl.R.C.No.1348 of 2024 16.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4