Santhosh Mathew vs Jeroyish

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 01, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1484444

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1484444
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Jun 01, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/3358/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santhosh Mathew

Respondent

Jeroyish

Excerpt

.....sr pp sri c s sreejith this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on 01.06.2022, along with crl.mc.3358/2022, the court on the same day passed the following:orderdated this the 1st day of june, 2022. these two crl.m.cs are filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 (for short ‘cr.p.c’) seeking to quash orders passed by judicial first class magistrate-ii, pala respectively in cmp no. 21/2022 in s.t. no.72/20217 and cmp no.20/2022 in s.t. no.71/2017.2. by the above orders, the court below has dismissed theapplications filed by the petitioners under section 311 cr.p.c seeking to forward the disputed cheques which formed the basis for the prosecution, for getting expert opinion on authorship of handwritings by which it’s entries are filled up.3. according to sri. parthasarathy, the court below has gonewrong in dismissing the application. according to him, getting expert opinion on authorship of handwritings is very much required for the petitioner to rebut the presumption on execution of the cheque.4. this court has noticed that voluntary issuance of signed cheques was admitted by the petitioners in the respective prosecutions. therefore, in view of the dictum in bir singh v. mukesh kumar [2019(1) khc 774 (sc)], the proof of authorship of handwriting by whichthe entries in the disputed cheques have been filled up is irrelevant, when those are admitted by the accused as issued duly signed and voluntarily. the onus lies on the accused in such a context to rebut the presumption by establishing that the disputed signed cheques have reached the hands of the complainant in a manner different from that alleged by the complainant. opinion on authorship of handwriting by which the entries in the cheques are filled up will not help the petitioner to discharge it’s onus to rebut the presumption on execution. this court is declined to interfere with the impugned order.both crl.m.cs fail and are dismissed for reasons stated above. sd/-.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 3358 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2022 IN CMP 21/2022 IN ST.NO.72/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, PALA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 SANTHOSH MATHEW,AGED 40 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH MATHEW,ELIPPULIKKATTU HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O., THIDANADUM,KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122 2 ANCY SANTHOSH,AGED 38 YEARS W/O. SANTHOSH MATHEW,ELIPPULIKKATTU HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O., THIDANADU,KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122 BY ADVS. R.PARTHASARATHY SEEMA RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 JEROYISH, S/O. GEORGE, KANIPPALLIL HOUSE,VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: PP SRI RENJITH GEORGE,SR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3359/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 3359 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6/5/2022 IN CMP 20/2022 IN S.T.NO.71/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, PALA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 SANTHOSH MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH MATHEW, ELIPPULIKKATTU HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O., THIDANADUM,KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122 2 ANCY SANTHOSH, AGED 38 YEARS W/O. SANTHOSH MATHEW,ELIPPULIKKATTU HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O., THIDANADU, KONDOOR VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM , PIN - 686122 BY ADVS.R.PARTHASARATHY SEEMA RESPONDENT/S: 1 SANJU, S/O. THOMAS, NEDUKUNNEL HOUSE, EDIYANAL P.O., RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SRI C S SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3358/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022. These two Crl.M.Cs are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking to quash orders passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala respectively in CMP No. 21/2022 in S.T. No.72/20217 and CMP No.20/2022 in S.T. No.71/2017.

2. By the above orders, the court below has dismissed the

applications filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking to forward the disputed cheques which formed the basis for the prosecution, for getting expert opinion on authorship of handwritings by which it’s entries are filled up.

3. According to Sri. Parthasarathy, the court below has gone

wrong in dismissing the application. According to him, getting expert opinion on authorship of handwritings is very much required for the petitioner to rebut the presumption on execution of the cheque.

4. This Court has noticed that voluntary issuance of signed cheques was admitted by the petitioners in the respective prosecutions. Therefore, in view of the dictum in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019

(1) KHC 774 (SC)], the proof of authorship of handwriting by which

the entries in the disputed cheques have been filled up is irrelevant, when those are admitted by the accused as issued duly signed and voluntarily. The onus lies on the accused in such a context to rebut the presumption by establishing that the disputed signed cheques have reached the hands of the complainant in a manner different from that alleged by the complainant. Opinion on authorship of handwriting by which the entries in the cheques are filled up will not help the petitioner to discharge it’s onus to rebut the presumption on execution. This Court is declined to interfere with the impugned order.

Both Crl.M.Cs fail and are dismissed for reasons stated above. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE al/-.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3358/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER MADE UNDER SECTION 313 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. Annexure-A2 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF 2ND PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 313 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. Annexure-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE COMPLAINANT AS PW1 IN ST.72/017 Annexure-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN CMP 21/2022 IN ST Annexure-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY COMPLAINANT ON 21-4-2022 Annexure-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 21/2022 IN ST NO.72/2017 DATED 06-05-2022. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3359/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER MADE UNDER SECTION 313 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. Annexure-A2 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF 2ND PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 313 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. Annexure-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE COMPLAINANT IN ST.NO.71/2017 Annexure-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN CMP 20/2022 IN ST Annexure-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY COMPLAINANT ON 21-4-2022 Annexure-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 20/2022 IN ST NO.71/2017 DATED 06-05-2022.

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2022 Same Parties Santhosh Mathew vs Jeroyish Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph