ORDER : Crl.M.C.No.2407/2016 The petitioner accused in C.C.No.4/2001 for the offence alleged under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The complaint proceeds with the allegations that the wife of the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent on the basis of an agreement dated 30.3.2009 that the petitioner's wife is prepared to sell her immovable property along with residential house, to the 2nd respondent for consideration of Rs.13 lakhs and an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs was collected from the 2nd respondent and later the wife of the petitioner could not execute the agreement and the 2nd respondent had requested the petitioner's wife to return the advance amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs which was earlier received by the petitioner's wife, that the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.2.5 lakhs drawn from his account in favour of R-2 which resulted in dishonour with the endorsement by the bank that the payment 'exceeds arrangement', etc. It is on the basis of this premise that the impugned Anx.A-1 complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent which has been taken on file as C.C.No.4/2011 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vaikom. The petitioner is the sole accused in the complaint. It is averred that the impugned complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent at the instance of one M.G. Varghese and the transaction is not as alleged by the complaint. The petitioner's wife had borrowed an amount of Rs.4.75 lakhs from the 2nd respondent in the year 2006 and the amount was returned to the 2nd respondent through the account maintained by the mother of the petitioner's wife. When the entire amount was repaid, the petitioner as well as his wife requested the 2nd respondent to return the signed blank cheques, signed blank stamped papers and also papers in which stamps are affixed, collected by him at the time of borrowal, that when the 2nd respondent did not return the papers to the petitioner or his wife the petitioner was forced to file Anx.A-II complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery, but, it was of no result. Then the petitioner's wife approached the City Police Commissioner, Kochi City, as seen in Anx.III receipt and that later, the petitioner's wife was forced to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, by filing Crl.M.P.No.1599/2012 (Anx.A-IV) alleging that M.G. Varghese along with 2nd respondent and 2 others (one P.B. Navas and K.T. Stephen) had conspired together and misused the documents collected from the petitioner and the case was referred to the police leading to the registration of Anx.V Crime No.1448/2012 which is pending investigation by the Thrikkakkara Police. At the defence stage, the petitioner took all his effort to bring the petition which was filed by his wife before the Circle Inspector of Police as early as in 2008, but the Circle Inspector could not produce the document as the investigation is now done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner has filed Anx.A-VI application to summon his wife under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C along with a witness schedule. But the learned Magistrate mechanically rejected the petition vide Anx.A-VII order dated 31.3.2016 on Crl.M.P.No.237/2016 in C.C.No.4/2011. The petitioner has filed the instant Crl.M.C. with a prayer to quash the said impugned Anx.A-VII order dated 31.3.2016 whereby his request to examine his wife as defence witness has been declined by the trial court. 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara, who was conducting the investigation in respect of the aforementioned Crime No.1448/2012 of Thrikkakkara Police Station, has filed a statement dated 18.2.2017 in which it has been inter alia stated that investigation in respect of the said Crime has been completed and the final report has been duly filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned and the conclusions in the final report is that the case is liable to the referred as one involving civil nature. It is also pointed by the Prosecutor appearing for the said Assistant Commissioner of Police, that the said final report is now pending consideration before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, and is stands posted to 28.2.2017. 3. In the light of the submission of the final report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed objection to the refer report and that the matter is posted to 28.2.2017. 3. In the light of the submission of the final report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed objection to the refer report and that the matter is posted to 28.2.2017. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now not pressing Crl.M.C.No.2117/2016 and W.P. (C). No.15158/2016. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been advised to produce certified copy of the aforementioned final report before the trial court which is dealing with the instant Sec.138 private criminal complaint and that he is not intending to examine the Assistant Commissioner of Police as a witness. 4. So, the only surviving matter is the prayer in relation to Crl.M.C.No.2407/2016. The petitioner mainly seeks to examine his wife as a defence witness to give evidence regarding the filing of a complaint before the competent police authorities against the complainant in the present Sec.138 criminal complaint and the aforementioned named persons and also to adduce evidence regarding the discharge of the debt owed to Srio.M.G.Varghese, etc. Since the defence have the right to adduce evidence in tune with their legal strategy, it is not proper for the trial court to shut out the defence evidence sought to be adduced by the petitioner through his wife. In the light of these aspects, the impugned Anx.A-VII order in Crl.M.C.No.2407/2016 is set aside and it is ordered that the trial court will pass necessary orders permitting the petitioner to adduce defence evidence through his wife as sought for in Crl.M.P.No.237/2016 in C.C.No.4/2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will produce the aforesaid defence witness on any date that may be so fixed by the trial court. On a production of a certified copy of this order, the trial court will pass necessary directions for examination of the above said defence witness. In the light of these aspects, the Crl.M.C.No.2407/2016 will stand finally disposed of. As already ordered hereinabove, Crl.M.C.No.2117/12016 and W.P(C).No.15158/2016 will stand closed as not pressed.