Remanded

Chimmala Swetha v. Maria Fernandez

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021CRLRC/108/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an application for forensic comparison of signatures. It directed the lower court to send disputed promissory notes to the FSL for opinion, expedite the criminal trial within three months, and assigned costs to the petitioner. Criminal Revision Case No. 108 of 2021.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; constituted signatures for FSL analysis; expedited judgment ordered within three months; costs awarded to the State.

Chimmala Swetha Vs Maria Fernandez — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

,N THE H'GH COURT FOR AT HYD?REA:hTE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

"ii,'JI;ItEi^i[,X-,jI,iI^J]?[iH.*

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

CRIMI NAL R EVI toN CASE NO 108 0F 20 1

¶7

criminar Revision case fired Under Sections 397 and 401 0f cr.p.c aggrieved by the order dated.29.01.2021 passed in criminar M.p.No.510 0f 2o20in c.c.No.846 0f 2018 on the file of the court of the XrV Additionar Judge -cum - XVilr Additionar chief lMetropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

9f^{ilfelg gwetha, Wo.VijayaKumar,aged} about 36^years, Occ. Business. R/o.12-10-590/129t7, l Ftoor, Eshwara enitave,-f.ti-.toiniontri,i-iai d;iil"t: Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶10

...Revision Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 lfqr1gfgrn3nd9z,Dl9.^{Vingeni Fernandez, Occ. private Emptoyee, Fl/o. 11-2-} 4391 1 0lB, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

¶13

2 The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor,High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of trial in C.C.No.846 of 2018 on the file of XIV Additional Judge-Cum- XVlll Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad /^pending disposal of the above Revision Petition and such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of^justice.

¶17

lA NO: 3 OF 2421

¶18

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated. 26.2.2021 till fufther period.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s M. V. RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s V. V. S. SATYANARAYANA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON.BLE^{DR.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} 1 Crimi al evl ron^CaeN.108of20

¶27

g,RDEB:

¶28

This Criminal^{Revision Case,under Sections397 and 401 of} Code of Criminal^{Procedure,1973 (for short "Cr'P'C"'), is filed by the} petitioner/accused, challenging^{the docketorder dated 29'0t'2021} passed in Crl.M.P.No.51O of^{2O2O in C.C.N0,846of 2018 by the} learned xIV Additional^{Judge-cum-XVIII Additional chief Metropolitan} Magistrate, Secutrderabad, wherein^{Crl.M'P' filed bythe} petitioner/accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence^Act, 7872, for sending Exs.P.11 and P.12 -^promissory notes to^Forensic Science Laboratory^(FSL) for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused on Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 and for opinion, was dismissed.

¶29

2, Heard Sri l'1.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the revision petition'3r/accused, Sri V.V,S. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.1/de facto complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State and perused the record.

¶30

It is evident from the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 that respondent No.1/de facto complainant did not object to send the disputed signatures and admitted signatures for comparison. However, the Court below dismissed the Crl.M.P.

¶31

4, To resolve the controversy and to appreciate the material on record and in the interest ofjustice, it is necessary to send Exs.p,11 and P.12 - promissory notes to FSL for comparison with the admitted signatures of petitioner/accused on Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 and report.

¶32

¶33

Under these circ 2g'01.2021passed,n,,,..un.u.,theimpugneddocketorderdated Crl.lvl.p.No,510 of 2020 in C.c.,\o.846 of 201B by the /earned XIV Addition ar Judge-cum-xv* Additionat Chief MetfOpolttan Magtstrate, Secunderabad, is set aside and the court below is directed to send the disputed signatures on Exs.p.11 and P.72 - promissory notes to FSL for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused on Exs.P,1, p.3 and p.5. The petitioner/accused has to bear the entire costs for the examination of signatures in question, Further, the Court below is directed to expedite the proceedings in the subject C,C.No.846 of 2018 and determine the /is in between the parties within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is ordered.

¶35

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/.K,SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// il SECTION OFFICER To, l The XrV Additionar Judge -cum - XVL Additionar chief Metropolitan l,,lagistrate, Secunderabad (Witfr necorOs if anyl 2 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, uigh co; ior the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶38

One CC to tV/s Ir/. V. Raj Kumar Gabriet, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to M/s. V. V. S, Satyanarayana, nOuo.rt" tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies

¶39

One Spare Copy IVIVK TR

3'-'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911112O21

ORDER

CRLRC.No.108 of 2021

SIATE
-(
1
\25 tflu l:r
oo
*

¶48

ORDERING THE CRIMINALREVISION CASE .

¶49

% 1<br>L6<br>

Chimmala Swetha v. Maria Fernandez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chimmala Swetha v. Maria Fernandez

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

Yellaiahgari Ravi Vs State of Telangana

Kalyan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana and another

M. Sai Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Kanakanala Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

Thota Venkateswarlu , Kondal and another Vs The State of Telangana

T. Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Telangana and another