Balamurugan vs Sureshkumar

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD) No. 23607 to 23610 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on: 03.11.2026
Pronounced on : 10.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL.O.P.(MD) Nos. 23607 to 23610 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011445292026}
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.22278 to 22280 & 22282 of 2026
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.23607 of 2026
Balamurugan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Sureshkumar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, call for the records pertaining to the impugned dated
22.09.2026 in M.P No. 27 of 2026 in C.C. No.509 of 2019 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dindigul District, against the petitioner and
to set aside the same and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindigul, to permit the petitioner to examine the Post Master, Thirunagar
Post Office, Madurai and the Branch Manager, Bye-pass Road Branch,
Axis Bank, Madurai, as defense side witnesses.
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.23608 of 2026
Balamurugan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Sureshkumar
__________
Page  1  of  12
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
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned dated
22.09.2026 in M.P.No.29 of 2026 in C.C.No.508 of 2019, on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul District against the petitioner and
to Set-aside the same and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Dindigul, to permit the petitioner to examine the Post Master,
Thirunagar Post Office, Madurai and the Branch Manager, Bye-pass
Road Branch, Axis Bank, Madurai, as defense side witnesses.
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.23609 of 2026
Balamurugan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Sureshkumar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
dt.22.09.2026 in M.P.No.30 of 2026 in C.C.No.508 of 2019 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul District, against the petitioner and
to set aside the same and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Dindigul, to direct the Post Master, Thirunagar Post Office,
Madurai, to produce the documents regarding service of postal article
No.RT712493576IN.
__________
Page  2  of  12
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
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.23610 of 2026
Balamurugan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Sureshkumar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
dt.22.09.2026 in M.P.No.26 of 2026 in C.C.No.509 of 2019 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul District against the petitioner and
to Set-aside the same and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Dindigul, to permit the petitioner to examine the Post Master,
Thirunagar Post Office, Madurai to produce the documents regarding
service of postal article No.RT712493500IN.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s.M.Vivek Bharathi (in all cases)
For Respondent(s) :M/s.S.Sarvagan Prabhu (in all cases)
*
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.
__________
Page  3  of  12
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
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
__________
Page  4  of  12
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
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.

__________
Page  5  of  12
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
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
__________
Page  6  of  12
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
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
__________
Page  7  of  12
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
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
__________
Page  8  of  12
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
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
__________
Page  9  of  12
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:11:49 am )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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
__________
Page  10  of  12
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
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate No-I,
Dindigul District.
__________
Page  11  of  12
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
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre delivery order made in
CRL OP(MD) Nos. 23607 to 23610 of 2026
10.11.2026
__________
Page  12  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:11:49 am )