Court maintained dismissal of quashing application where discharge claim lacked timely evidence, emphasizing adherence to statutory process.

O R D E R Dated this the 5th day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.362/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamaba (Trial Court), which has been filed by the respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( N.I.Act, for short). The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash Annexure A8 order passed by the Trial Court, rejecting the petitioner’s application to send certain documents for expert opinion.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, the respondent had filed the above complaint alleging that the petitioner had issued a cheque towards a legally enforceable debt for Rs.1,02,43,654/- in the status as a surety for her husband, who prized a chitty that was conducted by the respondent complainant. In fact, the petitioner’s husband had filed a petition before the Trial Court to seize blank cheques that were in the said house. Subsequently, the petitioner’s husband has also filed a suit against the respondent. After filing the petition before the Trial Court, the Branch Manager of the respondent company approached the husband of the petitioner and settled the matter. He issued a receipt acknowledging full satisfaction of the dues. Shockingly, the respondent presented the cheque and got it dishonoured. During the trial, the petitioner marked in evidence Ext.D2 receipt issued by the respondent. In the cross examination of DW3, he had admitted that the signature on the receipt is similar to that of erstwhile manger of the respondent company. The respondent has also produced Exts. P9 to P15 before the Trial Court, which contained the admitted signature of the late manager of the company. In the above background, the petitioner filed an application to send the disputed documents for expert opinion. The application was opposed by the respondent. Unfortunately, by the impugned Annexure A8 order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application. Annexure A8 order is ex- facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as the petitioner has already discharged the entire liability due to the respondent, the cheque in question is not supported by consideration. Furthermore, DW3 has deposed that there is difference in the signature on the cheque in question and other admitted documents. Hence, it is necessary to send the cheque for expert opinion. Hence, this Court may set aside Annexure A8 order.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner’s sole intention is to protract the determination of the case. The complaint is of the year, 2018. PW1 was examined long back. The petitioner has not raised the defence of discharge during the cross-examination of PW1. It is at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner has come up with the present application, to protract the conclusion of the case.

6. Admittedly, the complaint was filed in the year, 2018. The petitioner had received a statutory demand notice, but has failed to send any reply. The complainant was examined as PW1. Not a whisper was asked in the cross examination of PW1 regarding the alleged discharge of the debt and regarding the receipt allegedly issued by the deceased Manager. Instead, it is after the prosecution evidence was closed, the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the fag end of the defence evidence that the petitioner has filed the present application to send the documents for forensic science examination.

7. The Trial Court, after an