IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2064 of 2009() ------------------------------------- C.C.NO.814/06 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM. ........ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ A.V.FRANCIS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PUVATHUR, ELAVALLI AMSOM, PUVATHUR DESOM. BY ADVS. MR.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. C.C.WILSON, MANAGING PARTNER OF CHERUVATHOOR FINANCE, KOTTAYIL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND PRESENT MANAGER M.C.CHACKOCHAN, S/O.CHACKAPPAN, MANANTHAN HOUSE, PORKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, MR.G.SIJI. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2064 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.814/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. Case of the first respondent is that towards the repayment of the money received under Ext.D1 cheque, Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that he did not receive Ext.D1 cheque and did not encash the same and Ext.P1 cheque was not issued towards repayment of any debt. C.M.P.2332/2009 was filed by the petitioner to send Ext.P1 and D1 for comparison of the handwriting to an expert. It was dismissed under Annexure H order. It is challenged in this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent and going through Annexure H order, it is clear that learned Magistrate is not justified in dismissing the application. The identity and the handwriting and signatures in Ext.P1 Crl.M.C.2064/2009 2 and D1 are definitely a relevant fact for resolving the disputes involved in the case. The question as to how the fact is to be proved is to be left to the accused. Neither the complainant nor the court is entitled to dictate the mode in which the fact is to be proved. In such circumstance, Annexure H order is quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to send Ext.D1 and P1 as sought for in C.M.P.2332/2009 at the expense of the petitioner. The Magistrate to see that the case is expeditiously disposed. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006