Telangana High Court
Yellanki Muthyalu vs The State Of Telangana on 2 September, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2491 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order
dated 20.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.585 of 2024 in Crime No.103 of
2024 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Choutuppal (for short "trial Court").
2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that the
police made an application vide Crl.M.P.No.585 of 2024 requesting
the Court to issue summons to the complainant and accused Nos.1
and 2 to obtain their thumb impressions, sample signatures and
handwritings in the open Court for forwarding the same to FSL for
analysis. After hearing both sides, the trial Court vide order dated
20.12.2024 has partly allowed the petition directing the complainant
to give his specimen thumb impressions and sample signatures in
the open Court for forwarding the same to FSL but the relief sought
against accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,
the present petition is filed by the complainant.
3. Heard the submissions of Sri Konda Srinivas, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.
4. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the trial
Court has made an error in dismissing the petition against accused
Nos.1 and 2 and that it is most essential to collect the expert
evidence in this case to ascertain the genuineness of the impugned
documents.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that
the trial Court has partly allowed the petition observing that the arrest
of the accused is a precondition for obtaining specimen signatures of
a person and that the accused in the present case are not arrested,
hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders.
6. Perused the record.
7. The allegations in the complaint are for the offences under
Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section
120(B) of IPC and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the allegations of
the complaint point out forgery and the usage of forged documents
alleged to have been made by the accused. As a part of
investigation to collect the evidence, the said documents need to be
sent to FSL for obtaining expert opinion, thus, the police have filed
the petition before the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that
the arrest of the accused is a precondition to invoke the powers
under Section 311(A) Cr.P.C.
8. Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder for the sake
of reference:
"311A. 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."
9. The said proviso is not mandatory but is directory in nature.
10. The High Court of Delhi has observed in Court of its own
Motion v. State 1 that the proviso to Section 311A of the Cr.P.C is
directory in nature and not mandatory. Thus, when a person appears
before the Court or Magistrate, pursuant to the application filed by
Decided on 23.12.2024
the Investigating Officer, for giving specimen signature or
handwriting, it is not essential to arrest him.
11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the
Crl.P.No.6449 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024 has observed at para
No.14, which reads as follows:
"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 (AIR 1961 SC 1808) 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."
12. The dismissal of the said petition would defeat the very
purpose of the provision. In view of the above held discussion and in
the light of the said decision, it is held that it would be appropriate to
direct accused Nos.1 and 2 to be present in the Court to obtain their
thumb impressions, sample signatures and handwritings in the open
Court for forwarding the same to FSL for analysis. Hence, the
petition is entitled to be allowed.
13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order
passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 02.09.2025
ns
