Telangana High Court
Parvataneni Vijaya Kumar Mentioned In ... vs The State Of Telangana on 22 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6449 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')
seeking to quash the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by
the XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Kukatpally, at Prashanth
Nagar, in Crime No.909 of 2023 before the Kukatpally
Police Station, Cyberabad, registered against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 of
Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
No.1 - State, had filed a requisition before the trial Court
under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C., for collection of standard
signature of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, along with
accused No.5, for the purpose of comparison of disputed
signatures with document dated 23.01.2023 of accused
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
No.1, original account opening form of accused No.2 in
HDFC Bank, Banjara Hills and Bank of Maharashtra,
Kondapur Branch, and also with the original letter dated
20.08.2020 for onwards transmission to Forensic
Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL') for comparison of
disputed signature to enable smooth investigation in the
matter. The trial Court directed the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 and 2, along with accused No.5 to appear before
the Court to give specimen signature in the open Court
vide order dated 20.05.2024 and thereby, summons
were issued to them. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal
Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri MS.Prasad, learned senior counsel
appearing for Smt Satyasri, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and
Smt K.Jayasree, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
4. Learned senior counsel for petitioners submitted
that the respondent No.2 had already resigned from LLP,
as such, there cannot be any document settling the
claims between the one partner of the firm and the
respondent No.2. He contended that the requisition filed
by the Police before the trial Court seeking appearance of
petitioners for the purpose of comparing the disputed
signatures is neither maintainable under law, nor on the
facts of the case on hand.
5. In addition, the learned senior counsel for
petitioners has incessantly contended before passing of
order directing the petitioners to appear before the trial
Court, neither the said requisition application was
numbered, nor any notice was served to petitioners. He
asserted that under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C., no orders
shall be passed unless the person/accused had at some
point of time been arrested in connection with such
investigation of proceedings. He lamented that even
assuming that the said requisition application is
maintainable, no purpose would be served to compare
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
disputed signatures and specimen signatures as the
petitioner No.2 had already given a notarized affidavit
stating that the signatures belong to her. In support of
his contentions, he relied on the judgment rendered by
the Kerala High Court in KT. Sukumaran and Others
Vs. State of Kerala 1. While reiterating that the order
dated 20.05.2024 passed by the trial Court amounts to
sheer abuse of process of law, he prayed this Court to
allow the criminal petition, quashing the order dated
20.05.2024.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and
learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively
strongly opposed the submissions made by learned
senior counsel appearing for petitioners. Learned
counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter denying the
averments made in the criminal petition and stating that
there are no illegalities in order dated 20.05.2024.
Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the
2023 SCC OnLine Ker 9961
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi
Kalu Oghad 2, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Babu
Misra 3, Joginder Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 4,
State of Kerala Vs. B.Six Holiday Resorts Private
Limited 5, Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs.
Republic of India 6, and Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali 7
and prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition as
the same lacks merits.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and
on going through the material placed on record, it is
noted that the limited grievance of the petitioners is with
regard to the direction issued by the trial Court vide
order dated 20.05.2024 in requisition application filed by
the Police, directing them to appear before the Court to
give specimen signatures so as to enable the FSL to
compare the disputed signatures with the sample
signatures, whereas, it is the specific stand of
AIR 1961 SC 1808
1980 2 SCC 343
1994 4 SCC 260
2010 5 SCC 186
2011 2 SCC 490
2013 5 SCC 762
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
respondents that there are no irregularities or illegalities
in impugned order dated 20.05.2024.
8. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by learned
counsel for respondent No.2 would reveal that the
petitioners filed Crl.P.No.11238 of 2023 before this Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the
proceedings initiated against them in FIR.No.909 of 2023
and this Court vide order dated 15.11.2024 directed the
Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down
under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., by following the guidelines
formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 8 and Satender Kumar Antil
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 9, scrupulously,
and not to take any coercive steps against the
petitioners. Further, this Court also directed the
petitioners to co-operate with the Investigating Officer by
furnishing information and by producing relevant
documents/materials as sought for in concluding the
investigation.
(2014) 8 SCC 273
(2021) 10 SCC 773
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
9. In view of the above order, it becomes quite apt to
note the definition of word 'investigation'. As defined in
Section 4(l) of Cr.P.C., 1898 and Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C.,
1973, the word "investigation" includes all the
proceedings under the code for the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than
a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this
behalf. Therefore, it can be said that there is no force in
this contention as it is needless to observe that order
dated 15.11.2023 passed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.11238 of 2023 is binding on petitioners herein,
whereunder, they were directed to co-operate with the
Investigating Officer by furnishing requisite information
to conclude the investigation, and in spite of issuance of
this order by this Court, the petitioners are pleading to
not give specimen signatures and same amounts to
causing hindrance to the process of investigation.
10. At this stage, it is imperative to extract Section 91
of Cr.P.C., and Section 311-A of Cr.P.C., and the same
read as under:
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
"91. Summons to produce document or
other thing.-- (1) Whenever any Court or any
officer in charge of a police station considers
that the production of any document or other
thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes
of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code by or before such
Court or officer, such Court may issue a
summons, or such officer a written order, to
the person in whose possession or power such
document or thing is believed to be, requiring
him to attend and produce it, or to produce it,
at the time and place stated in the summons or
order.
(2) Any person required under this section
merely to produce a document or other thing
shall be deemed to have complied with the
requisition if he causes such document or
thing to be produced instead of attending
personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed--
(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers'
Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b)
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other
document or any parcel or thing in the custody
of the postal or telegraph authority.
311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person
to give specimen signatures or
handwriting.--If a Magistrate of the first 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 and in that case the person to whom the
order relates shall be produced or shall attend
at the time and place specified in such order
and shall give his specimen signatures or
handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this
section unless the person has at some time been
arrested in connection with such investigation or
proceeding.]"
11. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is
significant to note that notice under Section 41-A of
Cr.P.C., is already issued to the petitioners and as such,
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
they are not arrested. A cursor reading of the aforesaid
provisions would clearly reveal that there is a bar under
Section 311-A of Cr.P.C., which enables the Magistrate
to order a person to give specimen signatures or
handwriting, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the same
is done for the purpose of investigation, or proceedings
under the Code, it becomes expedient to direct the
person, including an accused, to give specimen
signature or handwriting, as such, the trial Court issued
notice to the petitioner on a requisition made by the
Police for the purpose of facilitating investigation.
Further, in the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sushil Agarwal Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) 10 while dealing with grant of anticipatory bail, it
was observed in paragraph No.92.7 that "an order of
anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict
the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to
investigate into the charges against the person who seeks
and is granted pre-arrest bail". In view of the same,
(2020) 5 SCC 1
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
issuance of 41-A Cr.P.C., notice does not limit the
powers of investigating agency.
12. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that by
following the rules and directives issued in the cases of
Joginder Kumar (supra 4) and Arnesh Kumar (supra 8)
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 Kathi Kalu Oghad
(supra 2) 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 handwritings or impressions by
themselves neither tend nor serve to implicate the
accused", the question that has to be considered is
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
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.
13. Further, this Court in the case of Bagathi Vijaya
Lakshmi Vs. Hanumanthu Venkata Sathya 11 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 12 , 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.No.6449 OF 2024
14. 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 2) 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.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
firm opinion that there are no merits in this criminal
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
SKS, J
Crl.P.No.6449 OF 2024
16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:22.10.2024
PT
