IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4758 of 2010() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2010 IN CMP.3898,5705/2010 IN CC.558/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------- K.SUNILKUMAR, S/O.APPU NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS, KUZHIMAYIL MEETHAL.P.O., KARANTHUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.VIJAYARAJAN, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI, KARAPARAMBA.P.O., KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 010. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4758 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in C.C.558/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode filed C.M.P.3898/2010, to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert, contending that if the cheque is sent, the expert could give an opinion whether there is difference of four years between the signature and the writings in the cheque. Petitioner also filed C.M.P.5705/2010, to issue summons to the Income Tax Commissioner to produce the income tax return of the first respondent, complainant, for the period 2005- 2006 contending that if the return is produced, it will show that Rs.10,00,000/- was not shown in the return as claimed by PW1. By Annexure-II order C.M.P.3898/2010 was dismissed Crmc 4758/10 2 and by Annexure-IV order C.M.P.5705/2010 was also dismissed. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures-II and IV orders. 2. Learned counsel would argue that learned Magistrate did not consider the applications in the proper perspective and first respondent as PW1 deposed that though Rs.25,00,000/- is not shown in the income tax return, Rs.10,00,000/- was shown and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application, because if the income tax return is produced, it will show that Rs.10,00,000/- is not shown. Learned counsel would argue that it is the case of the petitioner that writings in the dishonoured cheque are made in 2007, though signature in the cheque was made in 2003, and hence learned Magistrate should have allowed the Crmc 4758/10 3 application. 3. Annexure-IV order shows that learned Magistrate dismissed the petition recording that first respondent has admitted that he has not included Rs.10,00,000/- in the income tax return filed by him for the year 2005-2006. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-IV order. 4. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that the dishonoured cheque should have been sent to an expert, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-II order. If petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures-II and IV orders, he is entitled to challenge those orders along with the judgment, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.