Kerala High Court
P.V.Anna Maggie vs Francis T.Chacko on 13 October, 2009
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3280 of 2009()
1. P.V.ANNA MAGGIE, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FRANCIS T.CHACKO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :13/10/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No.3280 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 13th day of October,2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.2043/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. Petitioner filed Annexure A2 petition to call for the cheque involved in C.C.1365/2001 another case taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by the very same first respondent against the petitioner alleging an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate under Annexure A4 order dismissed the petition. It is challeged in this petition filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that it is the specific defence of the petitioner even in Annexure A1 reply notice sent to the first respondent, in answer to the notice received under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Crl.M.C.3280/2009 2 Act that as insisted by the first respondent, four signed blank cheques were entrusted to the first respondent and the cheque involved in C.C.1365/2001 and the cheque involved in this case are two of the said cheques entrusted and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application. Learned counsel also argued that the handwriting in both the cheques is that of the first respondent himself and to establish that fact learned Magistrate should have allowed the application.
4. Annexure-A2 petition does not disclose the reason for calling the cheque involved in C.C.1365/2001 to this case. If several cheques were issued by a person, the handwriting in all the cheques could also be the same and for that purpose it is not necessary to call for the cheque involved in another case. On the other hand, if it is to prove that the handwriting in the cheque is not that of the petitioner but that of the first respondent, it is not necessary to call for the cheque involved in C.C.1365/2001 as the handwriting seen in the dishonoured cheque involved in this case is already available before the court along with the signature of the complainant. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure 4 order. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure 4 order along with the final order just like any Crl.M.C.3280/2009 3 interlocutory order if it goes against him.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006