Allowed

Smt. Katturi Jaya Sree, Adilabad Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC9 Apr 2021CRLP/975/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner-accused could not furnish pre-2004 handwriting samples as previously ordered. The High Court allowed the criminal petition, directing the Magistrate to refer the disputed cheque and available split-case handwriting to an expert to ascertain the authenticity of entries other than the signa

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, to send the disputed cheque and available pre-2004 handwriting from a split case to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and report

Smt. Katturi Jaya Sree, Adilabad Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI^DEVI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETlTlo^{N NO:975 OF 2015}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt Katturi Jaya Sree,^{W/o. K.} Ganqadhar. Aged^{45 years, Occ: House wife,} Rio.H.No.4-3-7 1 /4W2, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Road^{No.3.Adilabadtown} Adilabad District.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The state of Telangana,^{representedby itlPublic Prosecutor,_High co-urt.of} ' irUi.utrte, ut iyOe?UaO, fbr the State-of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

...RespondenUResPondent

¶14

lnduri Srinivas,^{S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged 36 years, occ: Business,FUo.H.No.4.2-} 83, Somwarpet, Nirmal^{Town, Adilabad District}

¶15

...ResPondenUComPlainant

¶16

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased todirecttheJudiciallr,4agistrateofFirstClass,Nirmal'AdilabadDiStricttorefer cheque bearing^{No. 963305,State Bank of Hyderabad'Boath Branch' Adilabad} District,dated2g.lo.20O3andhandwritingofthePetitionerfurnishedintheCourtin CCNo..5l5of2Ol2onthefiIeofJudicial[,4agistrateofFirstClass'Nirmal,Adilabad DistrictandrefertheSametohandwritingexpertaStoWhetherthewordswrittenin the cheque^{"srinivasaCommission Agency""Five Lakhs Rupees"and the date} 29,10.2003^{and comPare the same'}

¶17

l.A. NO:^{1 0F 201 5CRLPMPNO:10290F2 01 s)}

¶18

PetitionunderSection482ofCr,P'Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighcourtmaybepleased to stay of^{all further proceedings in C C No'515 ol 2012 on the file of Additional} JudicialMagistrateofFirstClassatNirmal,AdilabadDistrict,pendingdisposa|ofthe above Crl.P.No.^{of 2015 beforethis Honourable Court'}

¶19

l.A. NO:2 OF 201s(CRLPMP. NO:2212 OF 2015)

¶20

Betwee n:

¶21

lnduri Srinivas, S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-283, Somwarpet, Nirmal Town, Adilabad District.

¶22

..Petitioner/Respondent No.2

¶23

AND

¶24

Smt Katturi Jaya Sree, W/o. K. Gangadhar, Aged 45 years, Occ: House wife, RJo. H. No.4-3-7114\N2, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Road No.3, Aditabad town, Adilabad District.

¶25

...Respondent /Complainant

¶26

The_ State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the Staie of Andhra Pradesh.

¶27

...RespondenURespondent

¶28

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 vacate the interim order passed in criminal petition M.p. No.1029 of 2015 in Criminal Petition No.975 of 2015 dated 23-02-20i5.

¶29

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar^petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri r. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the petrtioner and the Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No,1 and of Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI}

¶32

CRIMINAL PETI^TION No.975^{of 2015}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The petitioner,^{who is accusedin C'C'No'515of 2012 on} the file of the Additional^{JudicialMagistrate of First Class'} Nirmal, Adilabad^{District,filed this Criminal Petition, under} Section 482^{Cr .P .C} -,^{seeking a directionto the Judicial} Magistrate of First^{Class,Nirmal, Adilabad District, to refer} cheque bearing^{No.963305, dated 29.10'2003,of State Bank} of Hyderabad,^{Boath Branch, Adilabad District along with} handwriting of the^{petitioner furnishedinthe Court in} C.C.No.S15 of^{2OI2to the Handwriting Expert to compare the} words written in^{the cheque"srinivasaCommissionagency"'} "Five Lakhs^{Rupees" and the date 29'10'2003with the} admitted handwriting^{of the petitioner'}

¶35

The facts, in^{brief, are that the 2nd respondent herein} filed a^private complaint^{againstthe petitioner and A-2 for the} offences punishable^{under Sections 138 and 142 of the} Negotiable Instruments^{Act" The saidcase was taken on file} as C.C.No.S15 of 2Ol2^{on the file of the Additional Judicial} Magistrate of First^{Ciass, Nirmal' It is statedin the complaint} that the petitioner^{is the Proprietor and 2na accused is the} Managing Partner^{of Jaya Sree Traderssituatedat Boath'} AdilabadDistrict.Itisfurtherstatedthatthe2"drespondent started supplying^{grains and cotton to the accused from} ll.lL2OO2 and^{the ."",1"a feli due an amount of Rs'S'OO}

¶36

lakhs and^{being the business partners'the accusedissueda} cheque^{bearing No.963305,dated 29'10'2003of State Bank} of Hyderabad,^{for an amount ofRs 5'OO lakhs'On} presentation, the^{said cheque} \ias returned with^an endorsement "lnsufficient^{Funds inthe account of the} After comPlYing^withthe accused and PaYment^stoPPed" mandatory Provisions,^{the2"d respondentfiled the above} complaint, which^{was taken on file as C'C'No'3Sof 2OO4'} Later, case^{against the 2'a accused was split up and the case} against the^{petitioner was re-numberedas C C'No'515of} 2012. Pending^{trial, the petitioner I-rled Crl'M'P'No'1301 of} 2014, seeking^{to refer the cheque and the writings furnished} in the Court^{to handwritingexpertfor his opinionThe said} petition was^{allowed, on 07' 1 1 2014' on a conditionthat the} petitioner shall^{furnish the documents which are in her own} handwriting^{prior to 2OO4, on or before21 '11'2014'so as to} send the^{same to the Handwriting Expert for opinionor else} the petition^{stands dismissed'Later, the petitionerfi1ed a} memo on^{21.11.2074statingthat she is unable to produce} any document^{pertaining to her handwritingprior to 2004} and as such^{she is unable to comply with the conditional} order. By^{an order, dated05'12'2014,the learned Magistrate} dismissedthesaidmemoonthegroundthatthepetitioner has not complied^{with the conditional order' Therefore'the} petitioner fiied the^{present CriminalPetition to directthe}

¶37

Magistrate to refer the cheque and handwritings of the petitioner to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion.

¶38

Heard and perused the record.

¶39

Learned Counsei for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magisrrate having allou,ed the application filed under Section 45 of the Indiar-r Evidence, erred in imposing condition that the petitioner shall furnish her documents in her own handrn,riting prior to 2OO4; that the learned Magistrate farled to see that the Memo filed by the petitioner would categorically indicate that in spite of their best efforts, the documents written by her prior to 2004 were not available and in the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate would have taken her handwriting in open Court to send the same for comparison by an expert; that the learned Magistrate faiied to see that the petitioner has denied her signature in the cheque, whereas the 2"a respondent has asserted that the signature and handwriting on the cheque belonged to the accused and as such it would be just and reasonable to allow the petitioner to send the cheque to an exert to determine whether the signature and the contents as disputed by petitioner were in her handwriting or otherwise.

¶40

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1"t respondent u,ou1d submit that the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the Memo as the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order dated 07 .ll.2ol4 passed 1n

¶41

Cr1.M.P.No.1301 of^{2014.He lurther submitsthat since the} cheque is of the^{year 2O03, the samecould be comparedwith} the handwritings^{of the petitionerprior to 2004'}

¶42

The point that^{arises for considerationis as to whether} Ex.P-l cheque can^{be referredto the Handwriting Expertto} ascertain the writings^{onEx' P- 1 is that ofthe} petitioner/accused or^not?

¶43

In the instant case,^{one thing is clear that the petitioner} and A-2 are not disputing^{that the signatures which are} appearing on cheque^{Ex.P1to be that of either of the accused,} but the petitioner^{is disputing that the other entries in the} cheque like date and^{the words "srinivasa Commission} Agency', "Five Lakhs^{RupeesOniy" are not that of either of} the accused.^{The record reveals that the trial Courtallowed} the application filed^{by the petitioner on condition that the} petitioner shall furnish her^{documentsin her own hand} writing prior to 2OO4 on^{or before 21.11'2014'The record} further reveals that^{the petitioner filed a Memo stating that in} spite of her best efforts,^{she could not complywith the} conditional order^{passed in the said application,but she} stated that her handwriting^{prior to the year 2OO4 and that of} A-2 in the split up case^{bearing C.C.No.206of 2012 are} available in Court,^{which are of pre-2004year and as such} the same may be sent^{to the Handu'riting Expert along with} Ex.P1 for comparison and^{report, but the trial Court}

¶44

dismissed the same. In view of such specilic stand taken by the petitioner, I am of the view that in the interest ofjustice, it is necessar5r that there should have been a direction for examination of other entries appearing on Ex.P1 cheque along with the handwritings of the petitioner and A-2 available in C.C.No.2O6 of 2072 in order to ascertain the truth. After obtaining the handwriting expert opinion, the learned Magistrate could have assessed the oral evidence as well as documentary' evidence coupled with Handwriting Expert's opinion in order to find out the truth. Whether the case of the 2nd respondent/ complainant that he was handed over signed cheque Ex.Pl in a complete form is correct or whether the plea taken by the petitioner/accused that the date and other writings appearing on Ex,Pl are not either of the accused could have been^judged thereafter. Law is well settled that the report of Handwriting Expert is not the conclusive^{proof of} evidence and it is after all opinion evidence and it should^be supported by reasons and^{the Court has to evaluatethe same} like any other evidence. It is^{for the Court to judge whether} the opinion has been^{correctlyreachedon the data avaiiabie} or not.

¶45

For the aforesaid^{reasons, it is just and necessary to} direct the learned Additional^{Judicial Magistrate of First} Class, Nirmal, to^{send Ex.P1-chequeto the Handwriting} Expert along with the^{handwritings of the petitioner/accused} available in^{C.C.No.2O6of 2012, which is a split up case}

¶46

¶47

against A-2, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal for comparison and report. After receipt of the Handwriting Expert's report, the learned Magistrate shal1

¶48

proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶49

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

¶50

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,

¶51

pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶52

SD/.K.SAILESHI

¶53

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// /.C]I )

¶54

To,

¶55

sEcTtON OFFTCER

¶56

The Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, Nirmar, Adirabad District. 2. Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutor, High court for the state ot retangan; at' Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

? 9n" 99lo lriT.^{Nagarjuna Reddy,Advocate} [opUC] 4. One CC to Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, Advocate tOpUCl

¶58

Two CD Copies

IVMK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910412021

ORDER

,-,f. :i t{E S T;i (,t
r
(,1
U 2I APB 2021
{'
i--Q

¶65

CRLP.No.975 of 2015

¶66

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶67

{l
4
vI

Smt. Katturi Jaya Sree, Adilabad Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Katturi Jaya Sree, Adilabad Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Rakesh Kumar , Babloo Vs The State of Telangana

Shivaji,Kolikineni Shivaji Vs The State of Telangana

T. Durgesh Vs State of Telangana

Poreddy Thirupathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Thatikanti Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

Joginipalli Kamalakar Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another