Dismissed

Mrs.P.Kousalya v. C.Shravan Kumar

Telangana HC22 Mar 2021CRLP/1317/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 CrPC petition, the High Court dismissed the request to send a promissory note to the FSL for analysis of alleged alterations. The Court held the petitioner admitted her handwriting and signature, so no material alteration was found and the delay in filing made the petition unacceptably late.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, and the subsequent applications for stay were terminated.

Mrs.P.Kousalya Vs C.Shravan Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1317 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

lrr'1rs.P.Kousalya, W/o Mr.V.lr/adhu Mohan Reddy, aged 48 years, Occ. Employee, R/o Flat No.502, Highlight Haveli, Street No.6, Habsiguda,Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

C.Shravan Kumar, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o. Flat No.G-8, 2-2-1130111A, Yad-walli l/ansion, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 quash the orders in RP.No.22912019 dated^17.01 .2020 of the Learned^I Additional tvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and consequently allow Crl.MP.No.2369/2019 in CC.No.66/20 18 on the lll Special lvlagistrate, Hyderabad

¶14

.1.A. NO: 2 OF 202'l

¶15

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 expedite the hearing of Cr|.P.No.131712020^for obtaining^{urgent ordersin stay} petition.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be pleased} to STAY all further^proceedings in CC.No.66/2018 on^the lll^{SpecialMagistrate,} Hyderabad, during the^pendency of the above referred criminal^petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri Ch. Venu} Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and^{the PublicProsecutoron behalfof the} Respondent No. 2 and of Sri. Shravan^{Kumar for Sri. Vivek Jain, Advocate for the} Respondent No 1.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K, LAKSHMAN

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.l3l7 oF 2020

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Crirninal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (lbr short 'Code") to quash the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Crl.R.P. No.229 of 2019 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at l.lyderabad and consequentially to allow Crl.M.P. No.2369 of 2019 in C.C. No.66 of 201 8.

¶24

Heard Mr. Ch. Venu Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Shravan Kumar, Iearned counsel for respondent No. I and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.

¶25

The petitioner herein is accused in C.C. No.66 of 2018. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section - 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act, l88l'). The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section - 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Act, 1872') vide Crl.M.P. No.2369 of 2019 in the said C.C. to send Ex.P2 - promissory note to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Red Hills, Hyderabad, for report with regard to the over-writing and material alterations and whether Ex.p2 consists of two different hand-writings, fbr the purpose of disposal of case on merits.

¶26

Crl.P. No.l3l7 of2020

¶27

The learned Magistrate vide order dated 14.10.2019 dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Revision Petition vide Crl.R.P. No.229 of 2019, and the leamed I Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad,} vide order dated 17.01 .2020, dismissed the^{said revisionpetition} confirming the order^{passed by the leamed Magistrate. Aggrievedby} the same, the^{petitionerfiled the presentpetition.}

¶28

The learned^{counselfor the petitionerwould submitthat} there is material alteration^{and interpolationin the figuresmentioned} in Ex.P2, and referring^{to Sections- 20 and 87 of the Act, 188i,he} would submit that^{when there is materialalteration, interpolation of} any negotiable^{instrument,it has to be sent to the FSL for obtaining} report. Further,^{no prejudicewouldbe caused to respondentNo'l-} complainant. By^{referring to the depositionsof PWs'1 to 3' the} leamed counsel^{would subrnit that PW.l himselfadmittedthat he} cannot say^{ExP2has two different hand-writings and,therefore'} accordingtohim,boththeCourtsbelowerredindisrnissingthe petition frled by^{the petitionerunder Section - 45 ofthe Act' 1872'}

¶29

On the other^{hand, the learned counsel appearingon behalf} ofrespondentNo.lwouldsubmitthatthepetitionerhereinfiledthe said petition at^{a belated stageonly to protract the litigation'} According to^{him,the petitioner herein did not dispute her signature} on the cheques^{and on Ex'P2 - promissorynote' Accordingto him'} there is no^{interpolationin the words in ExP2' Ex'P2 is only a}

¶30

KL,J Crl.P. No.l3l7 0f2020

¶31

¶32

supporting document to the cheques in dispute to prove that the petitioner herein has issued the said cheques to discharge legally enforceable debt. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Bhalla v. Jagdish Chandr and judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in Nalnaru Shanmugam v. Nalnaru Narayanaiah2.

¶33

The leamed counsel for respondent No.2 would also submit that the said petition is not maintainable and that both the courts below have rightly dismissed the same.

¶34

The said rival contentions would reveal that the petitioner herein has filed the petition under Secrion - 45 of the Act, 1g72 vide Crl.M.P. No.2369 of 2Ol9 in C.C. No.66 of 2018 on the ground that there is interpolation in the figures in Ex.p2 _ promissory note and also there are two different hand-writings therein. During cross_ examination, PWs. 1 and 2 denied the said fact. It is also contended by the petitioner that pW. I deposed that he can not say Ex.p2 has two different hand-writings, and in view of the said answers given by PW.1 with regard to Ex.p2, it is necessary to send Ex.p2 for FSL Report.

¶35

The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application by holding that the peritioner herein - accused has deposed in her evidence in-chief that her name,, husband name, the amount in figures

¶36

',^{(2008) ?,scc t36} '.^zots 1r1AIo sor

¶37

¶38

were in her^{own hand-writings along with her signature on the pro-} note. Thus,^{the accusedis not comingwith clean contention that} certain^{figure in the amount of figures is altered no useful purpose} would be served^{if the promissory note is sentto the FSLfor report'It} was further^{held that in L'xs'Pland P2' the amountin words is shown} as Rs.18,50,000/-^{(RupeesEighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only)'} The question^{whether thereis over writing or alteration in the amount} of figures^{can be decided later after hearing bothsides in the main} case. By^{referring to Sections - 20 and 87 of the Act' 1881'the} leamed^{Magistrate has categorically held that the questionwhether} any alteration^{in the figureis reallydoneat the time of execution of} the^{promissory note will have to be decided later' and the question} whether^{the promissorynoteis supported by consideration or not also} will have^{to be decidedlater and not now' It further held that the} petitioner^{herein filed the saidapplicationat a belatedstage' Withthe} said findings,^{the learnedMagistratehas dismissed the said petition'}

¶39

Learned^{IAdditional MetropolitanSessionsJudge'} Hyderabad^{has also dismissedthe CriminalRevision Petition No'229} of 20^{19 vide its order dated17 'Ol '2020confirming the orderof the} learned^{MagistrateCourt by holdingthat where the petitioner herein} admitted^{thatsome writings in Ex'P2 are in her own writings andas} seen^{from Ex.P2 - promissory note' the amountin wordsis shownas} Rs.l8,50,000/-^{(Rupees Eiglitpen Lakhs Fifty ThousandOnly)and} where there^{is no dispute with regard to the signatureof the petitioner}

¶40

KL,J Crl.P. No.l3l7 of2020

¶41

on Ex.P2 and her writing in the promissory note, no purpose will be served by sending Ex.p2 for Expert Opinion.

¶42

ll. A perusal of depositions of pWs. I to 3 and DW. I (Petitioner herein) would reveal that the petitioner herein did not dispute her signature on Exs.p3 and,4 _ cheques. She did not dispute her signature on Ex.p2 - promissory note. Her contention is that there is interpolation in the figures portion in receipt of Ex.p2 _ pro_note and it was written with two different hand_writings and, therefore, the same has to be sent to FSL for repon.

¶43

As stated above, the offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section - i3g ofthe Act, lggl. Initial burden lies on the complainant to prove that cheque was issued to prove the legally enforceable debt. To prove the same, respondent No. I _ complainant has filed Exs.p3 and p4 _ cheques, Ex.p2 _ pro_note, Ex.p5 and p6 cheque retum memos, Ex.p7 _ copy of legal notice and Ex.pg _ postal receipt and Ex.p9 _ reply notice. It is relevant to note that respondent No.l has examined himself as pW. 1 and also examined pW.2 and PW3, common friends. The petitioner herein has cross_examined the said witnesses at length. She has filed her chief-affidavit on 14.06.2019 and cross_examination was completed on 12.07.2019. She has filed the present application on 01.0g.2019. Thus, after completion of evidence on behalf of both sides, the petitioner herein filed the petition under Secrion _ 45 ofthe Act, lgT2seeking for the relief s&ted above.

¶44

-.<Ilr*-

¶45

Crl.P. No. iJ tT 0t2020

¶46

¶47

As stated supra, the initial burden lies on respondent No.l herein to prove that the cheques were issued to discharge legally enforceable debt. Once the coi,nplainant proves the same, then the burden shifts on the accused. As stated supra, the petitioner herein is not disputing her signature on Ex.p2 _ promissory note and also the cheques - Exs.P3 and 4. In the reply also, there is no dispute by the petitioner on the said aspect. Ex.p2 is only a supporting document filed by respondent No.r herein to prove that the cheques were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The petitioner has not disputed about Exs.p2, p3 and p4. Thus, both the Courts were right in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner with the findings mentioned above.

¶48

Section - 20 of the Act, 1881 deals with^,Inchoate Stamped Instruments'. Section - 87 of the Act, 1881 deals with^.effect of material alteration' and it envisages that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to caffy out the common intention of the original parties. As discussed above, the petitioner did not dispute her signature on Exs.Pl and P2 and also admitted that she has filled her narne, her husband name, amount in figures with her own hand-writing on Ex.P2. In view of the same, there is no error in dismissing the petition by the lealned Magistrate Court and as confrrmed by the learned Sessions Judge. More over, the petitioner

¶49

KL,J Crl.P.^{No l3l? of2020}

¶50

filed the^{petitionunderSection- 45 ofthe Act' 1872 at belatedstage} as observed^{by both the Courts below and petition at such belated} stage cannot^{be consideredas observed by the High Court of Andhra} Pradesh in^{Nalnaru Shanmugam2'}

¶51

In Sudhir^{Kumar Bhallarrelied on by respondentNo'1'} the Apex Court^{heldthat there is alterationin figures of Rs'30'000/-} and Rs.40,000/-^{mentioned in the cheque i e', interpolationby adding} 'zero' to make the^{sameRs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-respectively'} In view of the same,^{the Apex Court held that there wasmaterial} alteration. But, in^{the present case, as discussedabove, there is no} interpolation in Exs.P1 and P2.^{Therefore, accordingto this Court,} there is no alteration, much^{less materialalteration.Thus, the} principle held by the Apex Court in the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

¶52

In view of the above discussion, according to this Court, there is no material alteration in Exs.P I and P2 and, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶55

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \ ..' fv SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

1 The lAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 One CC to Sri. Ch. Venu Kumar, Advocate IOPUCI 4 One CC to Sri. Vivek Jain, Advocate IOPUC] E Two CD Copies CDL gbr

¶59

HIGH COURT

¶60

DATED: 2210312021

¶61

1 H E iA
(
oc 2 6 APB 202t z
o
.<br>* _l
, T r-)

¶62

ORDER

¶63

CRLP.No.1317 of 2020

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRIM!NAL PETTTION