IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3936 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.38/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CMP.3818/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY (ST 523/2006) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- T.I. HASEEB, S/O. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, THYPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINTS & STATE:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. SHAHIN SHARAF, KALLUMKAL HOUSE, ANAKKALLU, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU SRI.K.A.HASSAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3936 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case is at the stage of defence evidence. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs. Signature in the cheque is not disputed. Notice of demand though served did not evoke any response. At the stage of defence, a contention is seen taken up that the handwriting in the cheque is not that of the petitioner. The complainant, on the contrary, asserted that the handwriting in the cheque is that of the petitioner and that the petitioner had filled up the same in the presence of the complainant. 2. The petitioner wanted the cheque to be sent to an expert for resolution of the controversy as to whether the handwriting in the cheque is that of the petitioner or not. The application was opposed. It was contended that there was no bonafides and the attempt is to protract the proceedings. The learned Magistrate Crl.M.C.No. 3936 of 2008 2 initially and the learned Sessions Judge in revision came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no justification in the prayer to send the cheque to the expert. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the decisions of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. It is prayed that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of jurisdiction of this Court called upon to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on merits on the controversy raised as to whether the handwriting in the cheque is that of the petitioner or not. It is for the learned Magistrate to consider that question in detail at the appropriate stage. Suffice it to say that I take note of the totality of circumstances in this case, particularly the fact that no contention was ever raised before the complaint was filed that the cheque was not issued by the accused to the complainant or that it was handed over to Crl.M.C.No. 3936 of 2008 3 some one, from whose possession the complainant had clandestinely come into possession of the same. I do not want to foreclose any defence of the petitioner, but the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not deserve to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the option of the petitioner to take up all relevant contentions before the trial court and the appellate court and also to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings later on. (R. BASANT) Judge tm