Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent took an application to forward the said three promissory notes and Mortgage of Deed for Forensic Examination. Thereafter, a report received from the Handwriting Expert in the year 2018 stating that the signature found therein does not tally with the signature of the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, the suit filed by the 1st petitioner/A1 got dismissed for non- prosecution in the year 2017. Later, it got restored in the year 2020. After receipt of the expert opinion confirming the forgery committed in the promissory notes and Deed of Mortgage, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint. Hence, the above case.

5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent Police submitted that on the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.46 of 2020 on 26.11.2020, thereafter investigation commenced, statement of witnesses recorded, documents collected and charge sheet filed. In this case, the Handwriting Expert is LW3, who confirmed the forgery committed in the promissory notes and Mortgage of Deed. One thing is certain that in this case, signature found in promissory notes and Mortgage of Deed are not that of the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that the alleged documents are produced by the accused herein before the civil Court. In view of the same, the accused cannot have any other explanation or defence in the criminal case. Only on collecting of sufficient material, charge sheet filed before the trial Court. At this stage, this Court has to look only whether prima faice case is made to proceed with the case and not to find whether there are sufficient materials to convict the accused. Hence, he opposed this petition and the contention of the petitioner.