Allowed

P.Jayarajan v. v.Surendran

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022OP(Crl.)/208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition under Article 226 challenged a trial court order dismissing an application for forensic expert opinion on a disputed receipt. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order to direct the trial court to collect specimens and obtain expert opinion within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P8 order; directed Magistrate to arrange specimen handwriting/signature of Respondent No.1 and obtain expert opinion within 45 days.

P.Jayarajan Vs v.Surendran — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

OP(CRL.) NO. 208 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 IN CMP NO.74/2020 IN STC NO. 214/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

P.JAYARAJAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O.RAMAN PANICKER, 'RAM NIVAS', EDAKKEPURAM SOUTH, CHERUKUNNU.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670301 BY ADVS. V.A.SATHEESH V.T.MADHAVANUNNI ANAND V.S

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶10

1 V.SURENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, 'CHITHRAM', KOTTALI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670005 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV RAJESH SUKUMARAN K SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

O.P.(Crl.)No.208 of 2022

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

O.P.(Crl.)No.208 of 2022

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.C.No.214 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kannur, assails Ext.P8 order passed in the above petition dated 12.01.2022. The respondents herein are the original complainant as well as the State of Kerala.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the original petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶18

While assailing Ext.P8 order, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly,

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

O.P.(Crl.)No.208 of 2022

¶21

there was transaction between the petitioner as well as the first respondent. But the first respondent discharged the liability and for which, the first respondent issued a receipt. Initially, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate Court for getting expert opinion regarding the handwriting and the signature in the above document, since the attitude of the complainant was such that of denial of the said receipt.

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court challenging dismissal of the said petition and as per order in O.P.(Crl)No.287 of 2019 dated 01.08.2019, this Court dismissed the original petition, holding that the receipt sought to be forwarded for getting expert opinion not marked in evidence. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the application.

¶23

Now also, as per the objection filed by the first respondent herein in CMP No.74 of 2020, the first

¶24

O.P.(Crl.)No.208 of 2022

¶25

-:4:-

¶26

respondent herein denied the execution of the receipt now got marked as Ext.D1 by examining the petitioner herein

¶27

as DW1, during defence evidence.

¶28

The specific case put by the accused before the trial court is that the transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent was settled and for which, the first respondent issued Ext.D1 receipt. The specific case of the petitioner further is that the receipt was in the handwriting of the first respondent and signature also put by first respondent. Since the first respondent denied the document in toto, the prayer, that has been canvassed by the petitioner to get the expert opinion is having relevance in this case. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P8 order.

¶29

In the result, this original petition is allowed.

¶30

Ext.P8 order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to send Ext.D1 with sufficient number of

¶31

O.P.(Crl.)No.208 of 2022

¶32

-:5:-

¶33

specimen handwritings and signatures put by the first respondent during the relevant time and to get expert opinion, after directing the petitioner to deposit the fee for the same initially. The said exercise shall be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Magistrate Court concerned for information and compliance.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶37

rkj

¶38

O.P.(Crl.)No.208 of 2022

¶39

-:6:-

¶40

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 208/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.C.NO.214/2017 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT NO.V (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR Exhibit.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THGE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITONER DATED 23.07.2015 Exhibit.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN C.M.P.NO.1083/2018 IN S.T.C.NO.214/2017 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT NO.V (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR. Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT IN C.M.P.NO.1083/2018 IN S.T.C.NO.214/2017 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT NO.V, (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR. Exhibit.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.1083/2018 IN S.T.C.NO.214/2017 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT NO.V, (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR, DATED 29.04.2019. Exhibit.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P(CRL)NO.287/2019, DATED 1.8.2019. Exhibit.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS C.M.P.NO.74/2020 IN S.T.C.NO.214/2017, DATED 25.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT NO.V, KANNUR Exhibit.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.74/2020 IN S.T.C.NO.214/2017 OF THE JFCM COURT NO.V, KANNUR

P.Jayarajan v. v.Surendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Jayarajan v. v.Surendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika C.R Vs a. Balakrishnan

A.M.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Balakrishnan Vs Raveena Mahesh

Dr. Lal Kurien Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Thomas Vs Jessymol Varghese

Ashraf.P.K Vs Nk Panicker @ N Krishna Panicker