Telangana High Court
E. Lokeshwara, vs The State Of Telangana, on 16 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4450 & 4841 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
In these two petitions parties and issues raised in these
criminal petitions are common. Petitioners herein are accused
and respondent No.2 is de facto complainant in CC.NI.No.40
of 2023 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Judge cum
XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court
at Secunderabad.
2. Crl.P.No.4841 of 2024 was filed praying to quash the
order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3944 of 2023 in CC NI No. 40 of
2023 allowing the petition filed by de facto complainant under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.P2
and Ex.P3 along with Ex.P18 - Letter of Undertaking dated
20.11.2020 executed by accused, to FSL or Truth Labs for
opinion of the expert and confirmation of signatures of
accused.
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
3. Crl.P.No.4450 of 2024 was filed praying to quash the
order in Crl.M.P.No.3945 of 2023 in CC NI No. 40 of 2023
allowing the petition filed by de facto complainant under
Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to reopen the
case for the purpose of adjudication of petition filed under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. The trial Court vide separate orders dated 20.02.2024
allowed the Crl.M.P.No.3944 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.3945 of
2023 in CC NI No. 40 of 2023 respectively. Aggrieved thereby,
these criminal petitions are filed.
5. Brief facts of the case are respondent complainant
through his GPA viz., K.Shiva Prasad filed complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that petitioner herein took
Rs.3 crores as hand loan by issuing promissory notes dated
01.07.2019 and 29.02.2020 (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively).
Complainant further alleged that petitioner having accepted to
repay the amount within one year failed to repay the principal
amount and interest thereon and on regular persuasions
petitioner issued letter dated 4.11.2020 (Ex.P18) mentioning
the details of amounts received by him from the complainant
to the account of Sri Vijay Parvathaneni and transfer of said
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
amount to different accounts on his instructions to various
accounts detailed therein. In the complaint, the complainant
detailed the cheques issued by the petitioner on different
dates, their dishonor thereon, and in a nut shell, it was
alleged that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount to a tune
of Rs.3,40,70,685/- and that with dishonest intention he is
avoiding to pay the same. Thus, complainant issued legal
notice dated 01.02.2021 demanding payment of due cheque
amount and even after expiry of the period of 15 days when
stated in the legal notice to respond, the petitioner did not
respond, as such, the complainant filed the complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., praying the Court to take cognizance of
the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') and to punish
the petitioner. The concerned Court took the cognizance of
the matter and CC.No.40 of 2023 was registered against the
petitioner on the file of XVI Additional Judge cum XX
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at
Secunderabad. In the said CC., the complainant filed
Crl.M.P.No.3944 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.3945 of 2023 praying
to send the documents to expert opinion and to reopen the
case, respectively, and both the petitions were allowed vide
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
order dated 20.2.2024. Hence the present Criminal Petitions
praying to quash the separate orders dated 20.2.2024 passed
therein.
6. Heard Sri TK.Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in both the matters, Sri S.Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1 - State and Sri Chetluri Srinivas, learned counsel
appearing for respondent NO.2 - de facto complainant.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that
the complainant got filed the complaint through his GPA
holder who had no knowledge of the transactions and that the
said GPA in his cross examination had clearly admitted that
there is no liability on the part of petitioner and that the
complaint was filed on forged documents with an intention to
drag on the matter and the without considering the counter
filed by the petitioner herein, the trial Court passed orders
allowing the petitions filed by complainant and that the same
is contrary to Section 311 (A) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, prayed the
Court to quash the orders dated 20.2.2024 passed in
Crl.MP.No.3945 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.3944 of 2023 in
CC.No.40 of 2023 respectively.
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/complainant, submitted that when the
respondent No.2/complainant himself intended to send the
vital documents viz., Exs.P2, P3 and P18 to the Forensic
Science Laboratory for comparison of the disputed signatures
of petitioner/accused on the said documents with the
admitted signatures available on record and also with the
specimen signatures of petitioner/accused by obtaining the
same in the open Court, there is no illegality committed by the
trial Court while granting the relief as sought for in
Crl.MP.Nos.3944 and 3945 of 2023 in CC.No.40 of 2023. He
relied upon the paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment
rendered by this Court in Eronolla Lokeshwara Vs. State of
Telangana 1. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the
criminal petitions as the same lacks merits.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
the grievance of the petitioner is in relation to allowing the
petitions filed by the respondent/complainant permitting to
send the documents to expert opinion and to reopen the case,
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
respectively. The primary objection is with regard to the
proviso of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which requires arrest, whereas,
in the present case, as there was no arrest, the order of the
trial Court is illegal.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that by following
the rules and directives issued in the cases of Joginder
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 and Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar 3, would reveal that the process of arrest in
cases of criminal offences is necessarily fraught with legal
requirements. If Section 311-A is interpreted to require an
arrest, it will not only make it more difficult for the judiciary to
accomplish the objectives of the Section but will also open
doors to unnecessary arrests by the Police. The Court in the
landmark case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad 4
made an imperative observation in this regard that "the
specimen handwriting and the impressions of the fingers,
palm, or foot of the accused person will only implicate him if
the identification of the two sets can be proven through
comparison with other handwritings or impressions. These
1994 4 SCC 260
(2014) 8 SCC 273
AIR 1961 SC 1808
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
handwritings or impressions by themselves neither tend nor
serve to implicate the accused", the question that has to be
considered is whether it should be really 'necessary' for the
police to 'arrest' a person for the purposes of this clause when
it is conspicuous that the ultimate aim of the Section can be
achieved without mandating this requirement too.
11. Further, this Court in the case of Bagathi Vijaya
Lakshmi Vs. Hanumanthu Venkata Sathya 5 held that if the
accused is arrested solely for the purpose of obtaining the
specimen signatures even when they themselves are
cooperating to furnish the same, it would lead to
"the procedural code shall sub-serve the ultimate end of the
justice". On similar lines, the Calcutta High Court in the case
of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal &
Another 6, while bringing in the inevitable angle of
anticipatory bail, made a critical observation that "no accused
who has been granted anticipatory bail would cooperate with
the inquiry and allow the investigating agency to come to its
natural conclusion if the requirements of Section 311-A of
Cr.P.C., are given such an interpretation."
MANU/WB/1640/2022
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
12. The word "arrest" has been used in relation to the
provisions of Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C., to benefit the
investigating agency rather than the accused so that the
learned Magistrate can issue an order requiring an accused
who is in custody to provide the specimen signature or
handwriting without violating the rights of accused under
either Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India or the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. In addition, in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay Vs.
Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra 4) it was observed that giving of
specimen signatures and handwritings to the Police will not
amount to testimonial compulsion which is prohibited by
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and there is no
constitutional bar for the Police to obtain specimen signatures
and handwritings from the accused.
13. Further, the contention of learned counsel for
petitioners is that after examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C., and closure of evidence of accused, these petitions are
filed at a belated stage with an intention to drag the matter,
whereas, the stand of respondents is that the accused denied
the signatures in the documents during cross examination of
SKS, J
Crl.P.Nos.4450 & 4841 of 2024
PW.2 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, it cannot be said
that it is delayed tactic, as such, there is no illegality in the
order of the trial Court.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm
opinion that no interference of this Court is required in the
orders passed in Crl.MP.Nos.3944 and 3945 of 2023 in
CC.No.40 of 2023. There are no merits in these criminal
petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 16.10.2024
PT
