Accused in criminal proceedings regarding forgery must adhere to procedural requirements for expert testimony as outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code.

O R D E R

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2025 The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.872 of 2015 registered at the Kilimanoor Police Station for offences under Sections 420 , 406, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , now pending as C.C No.857 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Attingal.

2. The crime is registered on the allegation that the petitioners altered the amount in the cheque issued by the de facto complainant by showing the amount as Rs.7,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions assailing the further proceedings in the case against the petitioners. The first contention is that going by Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the handwritings and signatures of the petitioners in the cheque, the expert opinion which has resulted in registration of the crime and further proceedings thereon could be taken only on the basis of a direction issued by the jurisdictional Magistrate. The second contention is that the petitioners having obtained a decree against the de facto complainant based on the very same cheque, the criminal proceedings alleging forgery is unsustainable. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court inBaljor Singh v. State of U.P and Another [2018 KHC 4670] that the court can act upon an expert opinion without resorting to the procedure under Section 311A of Cr.P.C only if the specimen signatures/handwritings were provided by the accused voluntarily.

4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. The legal contention that Section 311A of Cr.P.C is not complied with does not hold good, since the expert opinion on the signatures/ entries were obtained at the stage of investigation. The contention based on the judgment of the civil court has to be urged before the trial court. The contention that the signatures were not given voluntarily cannot be decided in this CrlM.C.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is closed, without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to move an application under Section 311A of Cr.P.C and leaving it open for the trial court to pass appropriate orders thereon.