IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4318 of 2010() -------------------- CRRP.9/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD C.M.P. 4168/07 IN ST.3349/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, PALAKKAD ................. PETITIONERS / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ 1. K.P.HARIDAS, AGED 49 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, CAPITAL LIGHTS, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. RAJI HARIDAS, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.HARIDAS CAPITAL LIGHTS, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE : ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KALYANAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA GUPTAN, SWATHY, 15/430(3), PALAYAPET, PALAKKAD. 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 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4318 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 26th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners, the accused in S.T.3349/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Palakkad filed C.M.P.4168/2007, to send Ext.P1 cheque to an expert. By Annexyure-1 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.R.P.9/2008. By Annexure-2 order, the revision was dismissed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures-1 and 2 orders. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel Crmc 4318/10 2 is that as held in Nagappa v. Maralidhar (2008 (3) KLT 158), learned Magistrate should have sent the cheque to an expert and should not have denied the opportunity to prove the defence case to the petitioner. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexures-1 and 2 orders, I find no illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure-1 order along with the judgment, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.