Dismissed

Mr.Vejju Balaji v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC25 Oct 2021CRLP/1220/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside an order that rejected an accused's application to send a cheque for handwriting expert comparison, upholding the trial court's reliance on Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare signatures.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; application to send cheque to handwriting expert rejected.

Mr.Vejju Balaji Vs State of Telangana and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

,N THE HIGH COURT FOR

¶2

A r liibHEABltrE^{oF TELANGANA}

¶3

IVONDAY, THE TWENTY rwoildiliiJ,IiFJffi llrof&cEroBER

¶4

Between:

¶5

rHE HoNouRo... ollt3?I"L

¶6

AKTHER

¶7

'HAMEEM

¶8

cRr M INA LPETITION NO:1 220 oF2020

¶9

Mr Vejju Balaji, S/o. Satvar

¶10

enimdiore, W;.idd##i;:irf,i,ifp".F;?H3T^"ss, shop at_No s/ 11.r, pathuru Viilase,

¶11

...PET|T|oNER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telanqana, through rep by its public prosecutor, High Court at .^{Hy-derabadfor the_State the_Stateoi Tei;l;;;; Tei;l;;;;, vu ru |, ,,vu ru |, ,,ru |, ,,|, ,,,,}

¶14

.^{Hy-derabadfor the_State the_Stateoi Tei;l;;;; Tei;l;;;;, vu ru |, ,,vu ru |, ,,ru |, ,,|, ,,,,}

¶15

z Mr/s A.ama rndia private.Lrmited,l Formerry known as M/s Makhteshim_Aoan India^pvt Ltd)A comoany rncorporbted ,noLiint.orpanies act ie56, ia"vlng its registered office at j 014: Narima; p"ri'nf ri"'O"ri, and Admin Office at ptol No, DS_1 3, tKp Knowtedse p;rk: Ge;;;;"Vali!i, rurr,apu,y, Shameeroet. Hyderabad Reo,bv its Aist.M;n;s;_11n;r ffiilirlnrrrenoer S/o. N.Narayana Reddy'aged a6oui aa yeais^{- """' -"""' ''...'*arooNDENTS/coMpLArNANT}

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to set a side the order dt 11lo2l2o2o in crl.lv.p.No.74l2o2o in cc No.275l2019 on the file of XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad,

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2o20

¶18

Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings including the appearance of petitioner in C. C. No.27512019 on the file of XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 AND l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be pleased} to extend the interim orders dt:^{1910212020in CrlPNo.122012020 till further orders}

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusingthe l/emorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsof Sri VSRIVV'} PRASAD SANAKA, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and of the AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^{No.1 and of sri T.sharat, Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} CRIMIN LPETITIO N^{No. 1220oF 2020}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition, under^{Section482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure, 1973,^{is filed by the petitioner/accusedseeking} to set aside the order, dated 11.02.2020,^{passedin Crl.M.P.No.74 of} 2020 in C.C.No.275 of 2019 by the learned XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein, the subject application filed by the petitioner/accused, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the cheque in questlon to the handwriting expert to compare the signature of the drawer, was dismissed,

¶26

Heard both sides,^perused the record.

¶27

Learned counser for the petitioner/accused wourd submit that the conclusion of the Court below that the signature in question can be examined by it with the admitted signature of the petitio n e r/accused on record, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, is erroneous. The petitioner/accused has denied his signature on the cheque in question, at the first instance and therefore, the Court below ought to have sent the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for examination and report, to come to just conclusion in the subject C.C. and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated rr.02.2020, and ailow the subject apprication, as prayed for. The learned counser, in support of his submissions, relied on the decisions in Kati Maheswara Rao

¶28

Dr.SA..l Crl.P.No.1220 of 2020

¶29

v. Uppati Lalitha and^{othersl, Matta Sriramamurthvv'} Arepalli Srirama^{Murthy2, Sakriya Krishna Bai (died)Per LR} v. Syed Ismail^{(died) per LRs.3, P' KusumaKumari v' State of} Andhra Pradesh^{and anotheraand Uma Maheshwar Rao v'} Methuku Janardhans.

¶30

On the other^{hand, the learned counsel for the respondent} No.2/complainant^{would submit that a Suit was filed by the} petitioner/accusedtoreleasethebalancecreditfacility'wherein there is no^{specific mentionof forging the cheque in question'} Furthermore,^{notice was given to the petitioner/accusedbefore} filing the subject^{complaintand the petitioner/accused dld not give} reply to the^{said notice. After examinationof PW 1' the subject} application^{was filed in order to protract the litigation' The Court} below has^{power to compare the disputed and admittedsignatures'} under Section^{73 of the IndianEvidence Act' Thereis no perversity} or illegality^{in the impugnedorder' so as to interferewith the same} and ultimately,^{prayed to dismissthe Criminal Petition'}

¶31

5 As seen from^{the materialplaced on record'though notice} was issued^bY the respondent^{No'2/complainanttothe} before filing^{the subject complaint'the} petitioner/a ccused petitioner/accused^{did not took up defence that the cheque in} question was forged^{and the recitals therein were not in his} handwriting.^{The subject application was filed after the examination}

¶32

'^{20 l8 (2) ALT 594}

¶33

: zots (3) nut zo6

¶34

'zott^{(t) eLt rlz}

¶35

'^{zo to (z) aur (ca.)aro}

¶36

'^{zo tl (o) eur8oe}

¶37

Dr'SA'J Crl.P.No.1220^of2020

of PW.1.^{Further, it is pertinent to state that Section73 of the} Indian^{Evidence Act empowers the Court to examine the disputed} and admitted^{signatures to arrive at a just conclusion'The learned i} t .ludge, in the^{lmpugnedorder has specificallymentioned thathe} has 40^{years of experiencein this fraternity and he can easily} compare the^{disputed signature with the admitted signature} available^{on record.Further, the languageunder Section45 of the} lndian Evidence^{Act is that in order to form an opinion with regard} to the signature^{ln question,the Court has power to sendthe} disputed and^{admitted signatures to the handwritingexpertfor} examination.^{However, the said provision is not mandatoryfor all} the cases. It^{depends upon the facts and circumstances of each} case. In the^{instant case, the subject application was filed} belatedly. Further,^{there is no reply to the noticesent by the} respondentNo.2/complainanttothepetitioner/accusedbeforefiling thesubjectcomplaint,whereinthereisspecificmentionwithregard to issuance of the^{cheque in question. Furthermore, it is contended} bythelearnedcounselfortherespondentNo.2/complainantthat there is no mention^{with regard to the forgery/manipulationof the} cheque in^{question in the Suit filed by the petitioner/accused'The} facts and circumstances^{of the case on hand are not similarto the} facts and circumstances^{in the decisions relied on by the learned} counsel for the^{petitioner/accused. Inview ofthese} circumstances,thereisnoperversityorpatentillegalityinthe impugned order, so as to^{interfere with the same' The Criminal} Petition ls devoid of^{merit and is liable to be dismissed.}

¶42

¶43

l)r.SA..l

¶44

Crl.P.No. t220 of2O20

¶45

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶47

Petition shall stand close d.

¶48

Sd/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( it'

¶49

¶50

To SECTION OFFICER

¶51

The XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶52

? 9n"^{CC to Sri vSnMV.praiarj} S"ni[i'nOro.ate (OPUC) 9. 9nu 9nu^{CC to SriT.Shara[!{6yecate to SriT.Shara[!{6yecate SriT.Shara[!{6yecate} tbFijiJ'---'-'-

¶53

9nu 9nu^{CC to SriT.Shara[!{6yecate to SriT.Shara[!{6yecate SriT.Shara[!{6yecate} tbFijiJ'---'-'4. Iwo CCs to pubric prosecutor, High courrfor the State of rerangana, Hyderabad (our)

¶54