IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2302 of 2009() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/06/2009 IN CMP. 2938 /20O9 IN CC.230/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- T.J.JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, THAZHETHEL HOUSE, KADANADU KARA, KADANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K) MR.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS-COUNTER PETITIONERS & NOT PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. T.J.JOY, S/O.JOSEPH, THYKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, NARIYANGANAM POST, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE. 2. V.J.SEBASTIAN, S/O.JOSEPH, VARICKANICAL HOUSE, MELUKAVU KARA AND VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B. VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2302 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.230/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta. He filed C.M.P.No.2938/2009, an application to send the cheque, called for from C.C.No.363/2006 filed by the first respondent alleging that petitioner committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, to an expert for a report on comparison regarding the age of the signature as well as the handwriting. Under Anenxure-D order, learned Magistrate dismissed the application. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-D order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that even if it is not necessary to get a report on CRMC 2302//09 2 comparison of the signature and handwriting in the disputed cheque, there should be evidence with regard to the age of the signature and handwriting in the cheque and therefore, learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application. 4. Learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for dismissing the application under Annexure-D order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order along with the final order, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. 16th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv