Dismissed

Resu Krishna v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022CRLRC/91/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision filed by a petitioner challenging an Appellate Court order dismissing his request for forensic verification of a document's signatures. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory reasons or timely file the application during the trial court's pendency.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 91 of 2020 is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Resu Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

Criminal Revision Case No. 91, of 2020

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 &. 40-l of CI.P.C against the Order dated 03.10.2019 made in CRL.M.P.No.76 of 201,6 in Cr1.A.No.21 of 20'16 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Resu Krishna, S/o.Bhadraiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.4-4-78, Incable Line, New Bazaar, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District.

¶9

...Petitioner/ Appellant/ De-facto Complainant.

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Kotturu G anclhi, s/ o. venkates*urIr, A gu d' ffi ?xT"1"#6f te Business, R/o.Sai Baba Temple Road, New Bazaar, Mahabubabad, Mahabuabad District.

¶13

...2nd Respondent/ Accused.

¶14

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶15

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the CTI.RC against the order 03.1,0.201,9 passed in Cr1.MP.No.76 of 2016 in Cr1.A.No.21. of 201.6 on the file of Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabuabad.

¶16

IA NO: 2OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. pral,ing that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Cr1.A.No.21 of 201.6 on the file of Court of VI Addl. Sessions Judge,, Mahabubabad, pending disposal of the above, Criminal Revision Case.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao.

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.L: The Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the Respondent No.2.: Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.^LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE No. 91^{OF 2O2O}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

' Heard learned party in person, Learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing^{for the 2"4} respondent.

¶25

The present Revision^{case is filed challenging} the order dated 03.10.2019 in Crl.^{M.P.No'76of 2016in} Crt. Appeal No.21 of 2016.

¶26

The petitioner herein, who is^{the de facto} complainant, had filed a complaint^{under section 200 of} Code of Criminal Procedure^{and the learned Magistratein} turn referred the same to^{Police Station, Mahabubabad,} under section 156(3) of^{Code of Criminal Procedure, who} in turn registered a case in Crime^{No'150of 2006. On} completion of investigation,^{the Investigating Officer had} laid charge sheet against the 2'd^{respondent. The same} was taken on file in C.C.No.48 of^{2010(old No.517 of} 2OO7l against the^{2"d respondent for the offences under} sections 406, 420, 422,^{426 IPC and section 4 of A.P' Chit} Funds Act.

¶27

Crl. Ilevisiotl Case No.gl oJ 2020

¶28

The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate^of First Class, Mahabubabad, vide^{judgmentdated} 11.01.2016 acquitted the 2nd respondent.^Being aggrieved by the said^judgment, the^{petitionerherein/de} facto complainant had preferred the appeai^{vide Crl.} Appeal No.21 of 2016.

¶29

During pendency of the said appeal,^the petitioner herein had fiied a petition under section^311A of Code of Criminal Procedure read with^{Section 45 of} Indian Evidence Act to send the chit^{passbook whichwas} marked as Ex.P3 for a Forensic Lab^{Report on the ground} that the said Ex.P3 is a vital document^{on which the} handwriting of respondent No.1 and^{his family members} are there. Their signatures^{are also there on the said chit} passbook/Ex.P3. The original^{passbook was also signed} by the 2"d respondent and his family^{members'Further,} the fact that arnount was^{received towardsthe chit was} also recorded on Ex.P3. The said fact^{was elicited by the} learned VI Additional Sessions Judge,^Mahabubabad. Therefore on the said ground, the petitioner sought^to send the document Ex.P3 to^{Forensic Lab.}

¶30

Crl. Revision Crce No.91 of 2020

;

The said application was opposed by the lna respondent stating that the petitioner herein has not given any reasons, much 1ess, plausible reasons for sending the said document to Forensic Lab. There is no explanation by the petitioner herein for not taking steps during the pendency of the C.C. No.4B of 2010.

¶35

Vide impugned order dated 03.10.2019 the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad, has dismissed the said application on the ground petitioner herein has not mentioned any reasons, much less, satisfactory reasons for sending the document to the FSL and there is no answer from the petitioner herein in not filing the said application during the pendency of the said C.C. No.4B of 2010. The Appellate Court further held that it fails to understand as to what material on record the petitioner wants to connect such Expert opinion, especially when there is no signature or handwriting of respondent No.2 herein in Ex.P3, as rightly opined by the trial Court. The petitioner failed to explain as to how the reliel sought, even if granted, would establish the cuipability of respondent No.2 for the offences with which

¶36

Crl. Revision Case No.91 of 2020

¶37

¶38

he was charged. The opinion of Expert is^{only advisoryin} nature and it cannot bind the Court.

¶39

B. Now, the learned party in person submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the^contentions raised by the petitioner herein, more particularly,^the grounds on which the said application was filed. The Court below erred in dismissing the application.^{Ex.P3 is} a vital document as it contains the signature of^2"d respondent and his family members and^their handwriting is also there in Ex.P3.^{No prejudicewill be} caused to the 2"d respondent if the^{said documentis sent} to FSL. Whereas the learned^{Counsel for the 2"4} respondent and learned Public Prosecutor^{opposed the} present application on the ground that the^Courtbelow rightly dismissed the said application on^{consideration of} both facts and law.

¶40

As stated above, the petitioner^{hereinhad filed} the above said application^{videCr1. M.P. No.76 of 2076 in} Crl. Appeal No.21 of 2016 seeking to^{send Ex'P3 for FSL.} According to him, it contains the signature^and

¶41

Crl. Revision Crce No,9l o12020

¶42

¶43

handwriting of the 2n,t respondent and his family members.

¶44

Perusal of charge sheet would reveal that the allegation against the 2"a respondent is that, the 2"d respondent/accused is a Money lender, running a private chits without getting a registration as per A.P. Chit Funds Act. The petitioner herein and others joined as members in the said chit. He has participated in the auction and he was declared as the highest bidder. PW.2 stood as guarantor. In spite of severai requests, the accused failed to pay the prized chit amount. Thus, the accused committed cheating, played fraud and mischief and also committed criminal breach of trust, apart from committing the offence under section Chit Funds Act.

¶45

1 1. The iearned Magistrate specifically held according to the petitioner herein, Ex.P3 is a crucial document, but he did not send it to the Expert at the earliest point of time. PW.S/Investigating Officer also admitted that the petitioner herein/PW.t has not given any documentary evidence to him. The Investigating Officer did not collect any documentary evidence from the

¶46

¶47

Crl. Revision Case No.91 of^2020.

¶48

¶49

house of the accused.^{PW.1 did not file copy of Ex'P3} along with private complaint^{before the Court. With the} said findings, the Court^{below acquitted the2n't} respondent/accused. The^{petitioner hereinfiled the said} application seeking to send^{the same to Expert. As} rightiy held by the Appellate Court,^{the petitioner herein} failed to mention reasonable/ satisfactory^{reasons for} sending the said document to^{Expert.He has not given} any reason for not filing the said^{application along with} private complaint fi1ed under section 200^{of Code of} Criminal Procedure and^{also during pendency of the said} C.C. No.48 of 2010. The^{petitioner herein has also not} explained as to what material^{on record the petitioner} wants to connect such Expert^{opinion, especially when} there is no signature or^{handwriting of respondentNo'2} in Ex.P3. As rightly held^{by the AppellateCourt if the} relief is granted, the^{petitioner is not in a position to} establish the culpability^{of lna respondentfor the offences} alleged.

¶50

It is relevant to note^{that as per Section 311A} of Code of Criminal Procedure,^{if a Magistrate of the first}

¶51

Crl. Revision Ctse No,9l of 2020

class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect. Whereas, the petitioner herein failed to file said application during the pendency of C.C. No.48 of 2010 before the learned Magistrate. He has filed the present appiication under section 311A of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Appellate Court. Therefore, the said proviso is not applicable. Even section 45 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the opinion of Expert. As rightly held by the Appellate Court, the petitioner herein failed to explain the reason for seeking such relief. Therefore, according to this Court, the impugned order is a reasoned order and well founded. The petitioner herein failed to make out any ground to interfere with the said order by this Court in the present revision case. In view of the above discussion, this criminal revision case is 1iab1e to dismissed.

¶56

¶57

Crl, Revision Cuse l'o.91^{o.f 2020}

¶58

¶59

i3. In the result, the Criminal^{Revision Case is}

¶60

dismissed

¶61

As a sequel, Miscellaneous^{petitions,pendingif}

¶62

any in this Criminal Revision^{Case,shal1 standclosed.}

¶63

sd/-K.SREENIVASA^RAO JOINT^REGISTRAR C]D //TRUE^COPv/ / SECTION OFFICER

¶64

To,

¶65

The VI Addl.^Sessions Judge,^Mahabubabad'

¶66

The Station^{HouseOffiier, Town PoliceStation' Mahabubabad'}

¶67

d;^-- to^{Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate IOPUC]} a. On" CC to^{Sri Nr*urrirrp, RajeshwaraRao' Advocate [OPUC]} 5. i;; iis-fhe^{Public Prodecutor,Hlgh Courtfor the Stateof} Telangana^{at HYderabad.}

¶68

Two CD CoPies

¶69

One SPare^CoPY

]CK$\r

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/06 /2022

1n! :l ,;-
o i<br>.Jo 2 J iril 2Ei2
.d'
l)r--
I"AT CT<br>

¶74

ORDER

¶75

CRLRC.No.91 of 2020

¶76

Dismissing the Criminal Revision Case.

¶77

lb\ tX*

Resu Krishna v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resu Krishna v. The State of Telangana and Another

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

Mr. C. Parthasarathy Vs State of Telangana and another

Shabbir Alam Vs State of Telangana

J Chandrayudu Vs The State of Telangana and Another

N.K. Theaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs The state of Telanagana

Illangi Chitti Babu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Pothula Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana