IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3527 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 4/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-
SOMANATHA PILLAI
AGED 58 YEARS
PATTEERATHU LEKSHMI VIHAR, CHERAVALLI MURI,
KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN - 690502
BY ADVS.
R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)
V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)
NEERAJ NARAYAN
V.JAYA RAGI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-
GANGASEN V.G
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O GANGADHARAN, VIJAYA BHAVANAM,
PUTHANCHANDA. P.O, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE,
PIN - 690501
BY SRI V S SREEJITH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 3527 OF 2022
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking to set aside an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kayamkulam (for short 'the court below') in C.M.P.No.5/2022 in C.C.No.4/2019.
2. An application filed by the petitioner seeking for examination of his signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was dismissed by the court below for the reason that the cheque issued was not objected by the Bank and that the said cheque presented for encashment was not returned for the reason 'insufficiency of funds', and not signature difference.
3. The contention of the petitioner in the prosecution was that an unsigned cheque given as security to one Mr.Shyama Prasad was misused by the complainant. If that be so, the signature in the cheque ought to have been a different one and the Bank might have returned the cheque for signature difference.
4. This Court finds that as per the allegation of the petitioner a cheque without signature and entries being filled up was given CRL.MC NO. 3527 OF 2022 3 by the petitioner to one Mr.Shyama Prasad as security and it was misused by the complainant in the case in question.
5. The specific contention of the petitioner was that his own cheque was given to Mr.Shyama Prasad as security. It is unbelievable that an unsigned cheque leaf was accepted as security for repayment of the sum borrowed. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, forwarding of signature for getting opinion of an expert on authorship is totally an unwanted exercise. True that the court below offered a different reason while dismissing the application. That is also a cogent reason and this court is inclined to add the aforesaid reason while declining to interfere with.
Crl.M.C stands dismissed for the above reason. The impugned order is confirmed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
SMA JUDGE
CRL.MC NO. 3527 OF 2022
4
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3527/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/C.C NO.4
OF 2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE JFMC, KAYAMKULAM
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 23-
11-2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER/ALLEGED ACCUSED TO THE RESPONDENT Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW1 DATED 30-12-2020 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 23-12-2021 AND FOR SENDING EXPERT Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF JFMC, KAYAMKULAM IN C.M.P NO.5 OF 2022 IN C.C.NO.4 OF 2019 DATED 28-04-2022