Dismissed

Julapelli Rajesh Kumar, v. Julapelli Devender Rao

Telangana HC14 Nov 2022CRLRC/2826/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revision maintaining order allowing petition to send disputed signatures to Forensic Lab. Court held Section 45 application can be filed at any stage if necessary for justice and discretion lies with the court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed, order of trial court confirming sending of documents to FSL maintained.

Julapelli Rajesh Kumar, Vs Julapelli… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2826 OF 20'18

¶6

Criminal Revision case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.M.P. No.611/2018 in C.C.No. 73 of 2013 dated 2710312018 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Julapelli Rajesh Kumar, Son of Ravinder Rao, aged 30 years, Occ: Police Trainee.

¶9

Julapelti Ravinder Rao, s/o Chokka Rao Aged about 5O years, Occupation: .Agriculture

¶10

Both are R/o Parvathgiri (V)and (RM), Warangal District.

¶11

Banoth Vasram, S/o Chakru, Aged about 65 years, occupation: .Agriculture, Ri/o Cheruvu Kommu Tanda, Dhowlath Nagar, Gram Panchyath, Parvathgiri, Warangal District.

¶12

Perala Varchan Rao, s/o Narsaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occupation.Agriculture, R/o Shapur (RV), Sangem (RM), Warangal District

¶13

...PETITIONERS/RESPON DENTS/ACC USE D

¶14

AND

¶15

Julapelti Devender Rao, son of Chokka Rao, Aged about63 years, Occ: R.T.C. Employee,

¶16

Julapelti Rama Rao, Son of Devender Rao, aged 35 years, Occ: .Agriculture

¶17

Julapelli Pradeed Rao, Son of Deverrder Rao, aged 31 years, Occ:.Private Service

¶18

All are Residents of Parvathagiri (RV) and (RM), Warangal District.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/COM PLAINANTS

¶20

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad For State Of Telangana And For The State Of Andhra Pradesh

¶21

..,RESPONDENT

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under Secticln 482 of Cr .P .C praying that in the c rrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, lre High Court may be pleased to stay all further p.oceedings in C.C.No.73l201 3 on the file of lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal,

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri C.N. MOORTHY, Advocat,-.

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: Sri K.V. BHANU PRASAD, Advocate

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

Dr. GRR, ] crlrc 2E26 2018

¶30

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTTCf, G. RADHA RANT

¶31

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2826 of 2018

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Criminal Revision Case is hled by the petitioners-respondentsaccused against the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No.6l I of 2018 in C.C.No.73 of 2013 for allowing application filed by the respondents-petitioners-complainants under Section 45 oflndian Evidence Act.

¶34

The parties are herein after referred as arrayed before the trial court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants filed a private complaint under Section 20O of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offences under Sections 120-8, 406, 420, 463 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment ofthe landed property situated at Survey No.193 (b) and 304 from the year 1974 of Parvathagiri revenue mandal and revenue village, on Warangal District. The complainant No.l purchased the property 13.06.1974 from its erstwhile owner, late Sri Daram Vykuntam, S/o. Sri Chandraiah under a simpl e sale deed. Subsequently, the complainants partitioned their properties and the same was reflected in the pahanies, passbooks issued by the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer (lvtRo),

¶35

¶36

Dr. GRR, ! crlrc-2826-2o78 Parvathagiri as per the proceedings initiated under I(.O.R. Act. The TahsildarAvlRO, Parvathagiri issued pattadar passbooks and title passbooks in favour of complainant No.l in the year 1997. Subsequently, the complainants orally partitioned and a-s per the oral petition, the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were again issued in their favour in the year 2010 individually. The complainants perfected their right, title, interest and possess;ion of the said land property flrom the year 1,974 onwards till the date of lodging the complaint in January, 2012. There were enemical terms between the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 and others. Earlier also, accused No.2 fited a criminal case against the complainant No.l vide Crime No. 87 of 2001, u,hich was dismissed by the concemed court, after full length enquiry. Since rnore than 25 years, there were no cordial rems between their families and the families of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Accused No.l joined in Police Departtnent as a constable and since then, thc accused No.l and his father (A2) intr:nsified and started meddling with the complainants' properly rights in the said agricultural land. The accused No. I and his father rvith the help of VAO tampered / interpolated the revenue records rvithout any- valid order by the MRO/Tahsildar, Parvathagiri. The complainants gave a complaint to the IV{RO, Parvathagiri, after they came to knolv about the tampering of records and ihe Tahsildar issued notices to both the parties and to the VAO for conductin.3 an enquiry. The MRO issued notices ro all of them and directed to appear before him on 08.08.2011 and conducted enquiry in-part. In view of the rt:peated interference

¶37

¶38

DT. GRR, I cdtc-2826-2078

¶39

and attacks by Al and ,A.2 by one way or the other, the complainants filed O.S.No.1002 of 2011 on the fite of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

¶40

The respondents / Al ard, A2 created forged signatures, forged and fabricated documents dated 20.08.1973 and filed along with counter affidavit. The said documents had not come to light for the past 39 years before filing the same in the court. Even in the enquiry before the Tahsildar, Parvathagiri also, it was not the case of A1 and ,A.2 nor submitted the said documents, but were filed for the first time before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Warangal. Similarly other documents dated 15.07.2002,04.07.2010 were also fabricated and created by the accused and his yesmen with the help of their specialists. 5. The complainants enclosed the available documents scribed by late Sri Mateti Narsaiah. The accused or any of their family members never purchased the property nor in possession and enjoyment of the properties at any point of time. All the documents were created by them. As such, lodged the^private complaint to refer the matter to the Police, Parvathagiri and to direct them to probe into the matter by registering a crime against all the accused.

¶41

6" The said complaint was referred to Parvathagiri Police Station. The same was registered as FIRNo.26 of 2012 and after investigation Police filed a frnal report stating that the matter was of civil nature. The complainants filed^a protest petition and the III Additional Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Warangal had taken cognizance of the case on 18.04.2013 for the^offences

¶42

¶43

Dr. GRR, ! crlrc 2826 2078

¶44

under Sections 120-8, 406,420., 463, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. Srx witnesses were examined by the complainant. At that stage, the complainants hled a petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed signature over Ex.Pl w'ith the admitted signatures of late Sri Mateti Narsaiah over Exs.Pl5, P22 to P25, P27 for comparison to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, tlyderabad whether the signatures appearing on the above said documents vvere signed by one and the same person or not. 7. The accused filed counter contending that the compliLinant did not take steps to send the documents to the expert before taking cogrizance and before framing charges. The alleged admitted and disputed documents were not produced along with the complaint or along with the final report/charge-sheet or in the enquiry on protest petition. The same were brought into existence by the complainant recently for the purpose of filing a false case.^'J-he originals of the said documents had not seen the light ofthe day till date, the certified copies obtained by the complainants and the alleged bank do,:uments were not admitted documents and that the complainants had not plea<led any reasons for non-filing of the documents earlierand prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The trial court on hearing both the leamed counsel fc,r the complainants and the leamed counsel for the accused allowed the petition observing that the comparison of signatures by experts was essential for deciding the case. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court in allowing the petition under Section 45 of Indian E'idence Act, the respondents-accused preferred this

¶45

Dr. GRR, t c rc 2826 2078

¶46

revision contending that the court below failed to note that the petition was filed

¶47

at a belated stage. The court below failed to consider the judgment relied by them and cited at the time of arguments in proper perspective and allowed the petition. The court below failed to take into consideration that a civil dispute was also pending between the parties and ought to have dismissed the petition. The court below came to a wrong conclusion that comparison of signatures was essential and prayed to set aside the order of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No.6l I of 2018 in C.C.No.73 of 20t3.

¶48

Heard the leamed counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶49

ll" The leamed counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the petition was filed at a belated stage and a civil dispute was pending between the parties and relied upon the^judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in R. Ramanjaneyulu v. State of AP in Crl.R.C.No.528 of 2014 dated 1.04.20t4

¶50

The said case was a cheque bounce case and the petition filed^{by the} accused to send the cheque to handwriting expert was rejected by the^{trial court,} as the same was filed at the stage of arguments. In the revision^{carried out by} the accused, the said order was upheld relying upon the^{judgmentof a Single}

¶51

DT. GRR, ] crlrc 2826 2078

¶52

Judge of the Court in Nalnaru Shanmugam v. Nalnaru Narayanaiahl

¶53

wherein it was held tlrat:

¶54

"the pelitiotl to send the dt>cumen! to handwriting e4terl uould deserve to be dismissed if tltere wqs belatedness on the part of the parry".

¶55

The learned counsel for the respondents-complainants relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers2 wherein it was held

¶56

that:

¶57

"In view of the^,;ame, *e are of lhe opinion that the courl tannot lay down any hard-on<l-fttsl rt es conlrolling the discretion of the court lo send the disputed documrtnts/writings for the opinion of the expert u to examine him in support of su:h opinion. On sending the document to handwriting expert and. on receiving repor!, porties, on showing sufficient cause, may call upon the cottrt lo permit them to examine hand-writing expert or any witness in support or rehu! tlrc said opinion".

¶58

The Division Br:nch relying supon the^judgment in Guru Govindu v.

¶59

Devarapu Venkatararnanas held that:

¶60

"It is nol as i/ tlrc application under Section 45 of the Act musl be filed soon after the ,rillet! slatenenl is presenled. There may be insldnces where the necessity to.filt, such application would arise after the oral evidence of certain witness(s is over. In case, the parly concerned is able lo elicit necessary inlbrmolion or admissions during the course ,tf evidence, the necessity lo ./ile an appliculion under Seclion 45 of the Act may not arise. Nothing prcvt,nts the party to a suit to file an application under Section 45 of the Act,^(ven al lhe stage ofarguments".

¶61

l11 15. The court also relied upon the^judgment of Justice Vivian Bose

¶62

Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotaha wherein it was held that:

¶63

'2013⁽¹⁾ ALD Jol '^{2oo8(3) ALT409 (t).ti.)} '^z006 16;^atttz " AIR 1955 sc 425

¶64

¶65

Dt. GRR, l crlrc_2826_2078

¶66

"lt is procedure, something designed to focilitau justice and further its ends: rat a penal enactment for punishment and penolties; not a lhing designed to lrip people up. Too technical a constuction of section that Ieaves no room for reasonoble elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded againsl @rovided always thot justice is done to both sides) test the best means designed for the furtherance ofjuslice be used to frustrate tt. "

¶67

"Thus, the court observed thdt no time could be Jixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signalure or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for exercising strch discrelion when exigencies so demand, depending u?on lhe facts and circumstances of each case. "

¶68

Thus the application for send ing a document to an expert can be considered at any stage of the case. The only consideration is to be whether it is necessary or relevant for sending the document to an expert. In the present case, the respondents-complainants in their private complaint itself contended that the accused had forged Ex.Pl document which they have filed along with their counter affidavit in the civil suit fited by them in O.S.No. 1002 of 201.1. They also contended that the petitioners/accused had also created some other documents dated 15.07.2002 and 04.07.2010. Though the said private complaint was referrd to the Police, the Police had referred the matter as civil in nature. As such, the burden lies upon the petitioners to^prove that Ex.Pl document is a forged document to prove their case against the accused^persons. They filed this petition after collecting the admitted signatures of the scribe of the said document Sri.Mateti Narsaiah. Filing the petition after examining the witnesses on their behalf, cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition. As it^was essential to prove the allegations made by the complair-rant^{against the accused}

¶69

¶70

Dr. GRR, I crlrc 2826 2018 persons, the trial court rightly allowed the petition for referring the disputed signatures over Ex.l)l with the admitted signatures of late Sri.Mateti Narsaiah over Exs.P 15, P22 t: P25 and P27 for cornparison to Dire^,ctor, Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills. Hyderabad.

¶71

This court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court ul sending the disputed and a<lmitted signatures o[ late Sri.Mateti Narsaiah lor comparison to Forensic Science Laboratory. As such the Criminal Re'rision Case is dismissed confirminll the orders of the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.6ll of 2018 in C.C.No.73 of 2013 ,lated27.03.2018, as it

¶72

sans ment.

¶73

Misccllaneous :rpplications pending, if any, shall stand closed'.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

S{-ru. MANJULA CEPUTY REGIST SECTI OFFICER

¶78