IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3882 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2008 IN CMP 7817/2007 IN CC.342/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ M.NAGAMMA, THOTTATHUVILAKOM AVADUTHURA, KOVALAM, KOVALAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. R.NIKOLAS, PRIYANKA BHAVAN, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3883 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. Nos.3882 and 3883 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 COMMON ORDER Crl.M.C.No.3882 of 2008 Petitioner faces indictment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She filed an application at the defence stage to forward a cheque to the expert for opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature therein. She has a case that her signature was forged in the cheque. That application was allowed as per Annexure-A5 order. The complainant wanted 15 cheques produced allegedly bearing the signature of the petitioner also to be forwarded to the expert for opinion. The learned Magistrate allowed the said request as per Annexure-A8 order. The petitioner aggrieved by Annexure-A8 order has come to this Court. According to the petitioner the signatures appearing in those 15 cheques are not her admitted signatures, they are forged cheques. The petitioner thus had come to this Court aggrieved by Annexure-A8 order, whereunder 15 cheques were also directed to be forwarded to the expert. According to the petitioner, they are not admitted signatures. Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2008 2 They cannot be recognised as standard signatures and therefore a comparison of the disputed signature with the signatures in the 15 cheques is not going to be of any use for the proper resolution of the disputes. 2. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner does not want the cheque in question to be sent to the expert. In short his submission is that he does not want to get the cheque examined by the expert as per Annexure-A5 order in as much as he has secured another report from the expert in a connected civil proceedings. Expert opinion about the genuineness of the signature in the cheque in question is thus available already in the civil case. The petitioner shall be satisfied by producing the report of the expert and proving the same before the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that this Crl.M.C may now be dismissed making it clear that the petitioner does not want to forward the cheque to the expert as already ordered in Annexure-A5 for the reason that he shall be satisfied by introducing evidence of the expert which has already been secured in the civil case. 3. I am satisfied that the said request of the petitioner can be accepted. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed as Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2008 3 agreed. It is specified that the learned Magistrate need not now forward the cheque to the expert as already ordered in Annexure-A5 order, ie. the order dated 25.12.05 in C.M.P.No.4472 of 2005. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the option of the complainant to request the learned Magistrate to forward the cheque to the expert may not be foreclosed. If he wants to now do the same, he can certainly make an application and the learned Magistrate must consider the same in accordance with law after giving the petitioner/accused an opportunity to raise objections against such prayer. At any rate, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the signatures in those 15 cheques are not admitted signatures and cannot be made use of as standard signatures will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate if such a request were made afresh by the complainant. Crl.M.C.No.3883 of 2008 In this petition also an identical dispute as in Crl.M.C.No.3882 of 2008 is raised. C.M.P.No.5425 of 2005 (Annexure-A4) was allowed and the cheque was directed to be forwarded to the expert. Later Annexure-A7 order in Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2008 4 C.M.P.No.7591 of 2007 was passed by the learned Magistrate directing that all the 15 cheques also be forwarded to the expert. These correspond to Annexures-A5 and A8 in Crl.M.C No.3882 of 2008. This Crl.M.C is also accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made in the above order in Crl.M.C.No.3882 of 2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-