IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3579 of 2006() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 2410 2006 IN ST.4156/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- JOY, S/O.JOHN, THEROTH HOUSE, MUNAMBAM KARA, PALLIPRAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- 1. K.S.RAJAN, S/O.SAHADEVAN, KOYIPPILLY HOUSE, MUNAMBAM KARA, PALLIPRAM VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV FOR R.1 SRI.JACOB GEORGE (PARAVUR) FOR R.1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3579 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque was dishonoured. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. The complainant came to court with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused appeared. Trial commenced. Complainant was cross-examined. In the course of cross-examination, a fairly specific and definite suggestion is seen thrown at the complainant that the cheques were handed over as security and as blank cheques when the parties had entered into an earlier transaction. At some time during cross- examination, we find an innocuous suggestion thrown at the complainant that the signature in the acknowledgment card and the signature in the cheque do vary. It is not possible to clearly decipher whether this question was put to deny the signature in the cheque or the signature in the acknowledgment card. Be that as it may, the complainant denied any such difference in signature. What is of crucial importance is that there is no specific suggestion in the course of cross-examination that a Crl.M.C.No.3579/08 2 blank unsigned cheque was handed over and that the signature of the complainant was forged. Be that as it may, at the defence stage, the accused filed an application that the cheque be forwarded to the expert. The learned Magistrate noted that there was no denial of signature at earlier stages. But looking at the signatures in the cheque and the acknowledgment card, the learned Magistrate perceived some difference and hence jumped to the conclusion that the cheque deserves to be sent to the expert. The impugned order was passed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant relies on the decision in P.J.Francis v. A.Pradeep [2004 CRI.L.J.3827] and Baby Thomas v. Paul [2007(4)KLT 738] and contends that this is transparently a case where the option to send the cheque to the expert is being sought to be invoked solely for the purpose of protracting the proceedings. 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances I am certainly convinced that this is definitely a case where jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be invoked to prevent abuse of process of court. The attempt transparently is to play for time and to protract the proceedings. That conclusion appears to be irresistible. There was no definite plea at any prior stage that the signature in the cheque Crl.M.C.No.3579/08 3 was forged. It is puerile and revolting to reason, logic and commonsense that a blank unsigned cheque would have been handed over or received as security. It does not require the wisdom of Solomon to conclude that the prayer to send the cheque to the expert for opinion about genuineness of signature is a clear abuse of that option available to the accused. This is done, it is so clear as day light, only to purchase time 4. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed further and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 5. Lest any unintended message be conveyed, I make it clear that I have scanned through the materials only to satisfy myself whether the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and need be invoked. The granting of the prayer in this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the respondent/accused to raise all relevant and appropriate contentions in the trial before the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3579/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3579/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008