1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainant and the accused.

2. The complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C. No. 478 of 2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, against the accused in respect of the cheque no. 920357, dated 18.10.2007, drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Kodumudi Branch.

3. On a perusal of the impugned cheque, it is seen that the writings in the cheque are in Tamil, but, the signature of the accused is in English. The accused took a stand that she has signed the said cheque, but, she has not filled the writings in the said cheque. The accused filed a petition in C.M.P. No. 5699 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 [old C.C. No. 478 of 2008] for sending the impugned cheque to the Hand-Writing Expert for comparison of the hand-writings in the cheque with that of the accused.

4. It is the case of the accused that she had not filled up the cheque, but, it is the case of the complainant that the accused had filled up the cheque. The petition in C.M.P. No. 5699 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 was dismissed by the trial Court on 15.09.2017. Challenging the said order, the accused filed Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 before this Court. This Court, disposed of Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 on 20.07.2017 by passing the following order:

“The Court below is directed to send the cheque in question to an handwriting expert within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to compare the signature of the petitioner found in the cheque with the other writings found in the cheque and also to find out whether both the signature and other writings found in the cheque have been written by the petitioner/accused.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5. In compliance with the above directions of this Court, the trial Court sent the cheque to the Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, for comparison. The Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, has sent a report dated 28.08.2017, stating that he needs 5-10 signatures in English of the person called S. Vimaladevi, relating to the year 2006-2010, for the purpose of comparison. Therefore, the accused filed a fresh petition in Crl. M.P. No. 11658 of 2017 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 with the following prayer:

“So, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to collect the sample writings of the petitioner/accused as found in the cheque concerned in the above case as requested by the Deputy Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai and send it again along with the said cheque to compare the writings through the advocate commissioner by reissuing commission warrant so as to follow the Hon'ble High Court orders and render justice.”

6. The trial Court has allowed Crl. M.P. No. 11658 of 2017 in S.T.C. No. 1015 of 2011 on 15.09.2017 by passing the following order:

xxx xxx xxx

Challenging the above order, the complainant is before this Court.

7. On 16.03.2018, this Court heard Mr. K. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. R. Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the accused.

8. On a careful reading of the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012, it is seen that this Court had directed the comparison of the handwriting in the cheque with the signature in the cheque. When this was brought to the notice, the learned counsel appearing for the accused requested this Court to refer the matter for the purpose of clarification to the same judge, who passed the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012. This Court also dictated the order in the open Court referring the case to the learned Judge for clarification. However, before signing the order, this Court felt that the accused should have taken steps to have the clarification obtained in respect of the order dated 20.07.2017 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 525 of 2012 and such a clarification cannot b