IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3922 of 2010 () ------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1013/2010 IN STC.418/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- MARYKUTTY JOSEPH,W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS,VAZHAPLAKKAL HOUSE, KOOMANTHODE PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.M.JAMES,S/O.MICHAEL,AGED 46 YEARS, KULAPURATH HOUSE, KOOMANTHODE PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3922 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 12th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in S.T.418/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure-V order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.1013/2010 filed by the petitioner to stay the proceedings till the disposal of O.S.165/2006 and report of the expert is received by the Civil Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section Crmc 3922/10 2 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that evidence of the first respondent was over and case stands posted for questioning petitioner under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is at that stage C.M.P.1013/2010 was filed. It is also admitted by both parties that original cheque which was produced before the Court was called for by the Principal Sub Judge, Thalassery in O.S.165/2006, a suit instituted by the first respondent for realisation of the amount from the petitioner and on an application filed by the petitioner herein in that suit, the cheque was sent to an expert and report is awaited. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-V order, as learned Magistrate was justified in not staying the proceedings. But if the original cheque is not available before the Crmc 3922/10 3 learned Magistrate to compare the signature seen therein with the admitted signatures, learned Magistrate cannot dispose the case and can only adjourn the case. In such circumstances, the petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.