K. Soman vs Radhakrishna Pillai on 22 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3866 of 2009()


1. K. SOMAN, S/O KUTTAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :22/12/2009

 O R D E R
          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.