IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 381 of 2009() ------------------------ CMP 904/08 IN CC.517/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- LOOSI MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, THANIKUNNEL HOUSE, KALLOORKKAD KARA, VAZHAKKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. JOSHI JOHN, S/O.JOHN THENNANA HOUSE, EAST MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 381 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is that she has not made any entries in the cheque leaf in question, including the signature. Her prayer to send the cheque to the expert was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate directed that the petitioner must furnish details of a private expert to whom the cheque can be sent for examination as there is likely to be inordinate delay in getting a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Trivandrum. That order was passed on 16.6.2008 and the case was posted to 21.6.2008. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not so far been able to identify and ascertain the name of a private expert. As early as on 25.6.2008 she remitted the fee for examination of the cheque - Rs.3,500/- No further Crl.M.C.No. 381 of 2008 2 orders have been passed by the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner has rushed to this Court with this Crl.M.C. Why has she done so without and before seeking appropriate direction from the learned Magistrate? No satisfactory explanation is offered. 4. I do not in these circumstances find any justification in the prayer to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction at this juncture. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate memo/petition before the learned Magistrate to apprise the learned Magistrate of her inability to identify a private expert to whom the cheque can be sent. If it is so, the learned Magistrate must consider such request and issue appropriate further directions. At any rate, the course adopted by the petitioner of rushing to this Court with this Crl.M.C. without and before taking appropriate steps before the learned Magistrate does not at all appear to be proper. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 381 of 2008 3