IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 CRMC.No. 3866 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2009 IN CMP 2936/2009 IN C.C. NO.122/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------- K. SOMAN, S/O KUTTAPPAN, LEKHSMI NIVAS, VADAKKUMTHALA MEKKU MURI, VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENTS(COMPLAINANT & STATE) --------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOCHUVEETTIL THEKKETHIL, EAST MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY MR. S.U. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rkc M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3866 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.122/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamkotta. At the defence evidence stage, petitioner filed C.M.P.2936/2009 to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert to compare the handwriting seen in the cheque with that of the petitioner and also to ascertain the age difference between the signature and the remaining entries. By Annexure-III order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-III order. Crmc 3866/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that specific case of the petitioner is that signed blank cheque was handed over in 1999 towards the chitty transaction and entries in the cheque is that of the petitioner and first respondent deposed that the cheque was issued by the petitioner and hence learned Magistrate should have sent the cheque to the expert as sought for in Annexure-II petition. 4. Learned counsel made available copy of the depositions of first respondent as PW1. Though in cross examination it was suggested to first respondent that entries in the dishonoured cheque was not written by the petitioner, first respondent has Crmc 3866/09 3 not deposed that the cheque was written by the petitioner in his presence. Instead his case is only that the cheque was written and brought before him. In such circumstances, even if the handwriting in the cheque is not that of the accused, it does not make any difference. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Annexure-III order along with final order, like any other interlocutory order, if he is aggrieved by the final order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.