(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 11.07.2025 in Crl MP No.5/2025 in STC No.983/2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Dindigul and set aside the same.)

1. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, whereby the petitioner's request for obtaining a hand writing expert's opinion for the purpose of comparing the signature contained in the cheque No.004195 was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

               The petitioners are running a proprietary concerned in the name and style of Subbulakshmi contractor. The first petitioner’s son, namely, Sri Ram, was handling the business of the said proprietary concern. The said Sri Ram passed away on 30.07.2024. The complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act came to be lodged by the respondent herein, on the premise that Mrs.Subbulakshmi failed to honour the Cheque bearing No. 004195, which was issued for the purpose of family expenses and business purposes. When the respondent presented the cheque for encashment, the same was returned stating it exceeds the arrangements. Thereafter, a case came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul in S.T.C.No.983 of 2025 and notice was issued.

3. The case of the first petitioner is that she did not sign the subject cheque and with a view to prove the same, an application was filed for seeking to obtain an expert's opinion. However, the said application was rejected, on the ground that the cheque came to be dishonored only for the reason it exceeds arrangement and that there was no specific denial that the signature on the cheque was that of the petitioner.

4. This Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate had failed to note that even in the reply notice dated 26.10.2024 issued in response to the notice dated 19.10.2024, the petitioner had denied having issued the cheque bearing No.004195.

5. The petition in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2025 has been filed seeking for an expert's opinion and the relevant portion reads as under:

               

                

6. In the petition filed in support of the prayer for an expert opinion so far as the signature is concerned, it has been stated that the first petitioner has dishonoured the cheque the signature in the cheque, this would be clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the said petition, which reads as under:

               

                

7. It is also submitted that at present, the complainant’s evidence stands closed. The matter is now at the stage where the accused/respondents are required to enter upon their defence and produce the evidence. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:

               “The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.

               (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing; Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.

               (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under Sub-Section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.

8. A reading of the above said provision would suggest that after entering upon his defence, it is open to the accused to apply to the learned Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination, which would include obtaining the opinion of a handwriting expert. In the present case, request for an opinion of a hand writing expert ought to have been acceded to, unless it was found that such request is vexatious or made solely with a view to delay or defeat the ends of justice.

9. The impugned order nowhere states that this petition is filed at delaying or defeating the ends of justice. Thus, the impunged order fails to taken into consideration the relevant factor. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 2SCC 258, wherein it has been held as under :

               “ Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. "Fair trial" includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the learned Judge of the High Court that the petitioner has filed application under Section 243 CrPC without naming any person as witness or anything to be summoned, which are to be sent for handwriting expert for examination. As noticed above, Section 243(2) CrPC refers to a stage when the prosecution closes its evidence after examining the witnesses and the accused has entered upon his defence. The appellant in this case requests for sending the cheque in question, for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent has closed her evidence, the Magistrate should have granted such a request unless he thinks that the object of the appellant is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings. In the circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal upholding the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and not sustainable.”

10. The object of any criminal proceeding is to arrive at the truth. Keeping in view the fact that the present matter has been pending for a considerable period, it is only desirable that the learned Magistrate forwards the cheque for obtaining an expert's opinion. The aforesaid exercise of securing the handwriting expert’s opinion shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.

11. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed.