Somanatha Pillai vs Gangasen V.G
2022 Latest Caselaw 6498 Ker

             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

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





               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