ITTAMMAAL BHASKARAN Vs. NADAVALAPPIL POKKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is accused of having committed offences punishable under S.417 and 420 IPC. Learned Magistrate granted him bail. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sureties on whose bond first petitioner has been released.

(2.) Learned Magistrate is proceeding with the complaint as contemplated by S.244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While evidence was being recorded in support of the prosecution, a petition was filed for directing first petitioner to give his handwriting to be compared with the handwriting in Exts. P2 to P5 letters, alleged to have been written by him. To that petition first petitioner, filed objection. According to him, the complainant had got ample time to prove the genuineness of the handwriting in Exts. P2 to P5, that the application put in by the complainant at this late hour has to be rejected, that the petition is only to harass him, that it is one for protracting the proceedings and that it the court finds that there is evidence on record to frame charge, then after actually framing the charge there can be an order for taking handwriting of the accused for comparing with Exts. P2 to P5 by an expert. After hearing both, sides, learned Magistrate allowed the complainant's prayer in the following terms:

(3.) Learned counsel representing the petitioners pressed for quashing the complaint, in exercise of the powers under S.482 or the Code. The complaint, in Annexure I produced in this case, it is argued, does not bring out any offence, much less, offences under S.417 or 420 IPC. Since no offence is made out in the complaint the entire proceedings before court below have to be quashed.