IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3712 of 2009 ---------------------------------- CMP.NO. 142/2009 IN CC.22/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- SUNITHA SANJAY @ SUJA, PONNUNPALLIL VEEDU, ANGADIKAL SOUTH P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN, MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHA.T., W/O.RAJENDRAN, SIVA PRASADAM, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3712 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 18th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.22/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. At the defence stage, petitioner filed C.M.P.142/2009, a petition to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert for his opinion on the handwriting seen therein with the handwriting of the petitioner. 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 and to sent the dishonoured cheque to an expert as sought for. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for the reason that petitioner is involved in several cheque Crmc 3712/09 2 cases and that is not a reason to dismiss the petition and there is no material before the learned Magistrate to show that petitioner is the accused in several cases. 4. Cheque is sought to be sent to an expert to find out whether handwriting in the cheque is that of the petitioner or not. Submission of the learned counsel is that in cross examination first respondent has asserted that cheque was written in her presence by the petitioner and therefore, dismissal of the petition was not justified. Learned counsel admitted that in re-examination first respondent has explained that cheque was not written in her presence and it was written and brought before her and only signed in her presence. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate is justified in not sending the cheque to an expert. There is force in the submission by the learned counsel that learned Magistrate should not have observed that as petitioner is an accused in several cheque cases, petition filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed. As the report of the expert is not necessary, on the facts of this case I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-III order. Crmc 3712/09 3 Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Annexure-III order along with final order, if it goes against her. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.