Obtaining specimen signatures for forensic comparison does not infringe upon an accused's fundamental right against self-incrimination when conducted per procedural requirements.

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.6.2024, passed by XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No.04/2021 whereby the application filed the Investigating Officer for obtaining the specimen signature of the petitioner in the manner in which it is signed in the questioned documents (in the name of complainant Masrur Ahmed Khan) has been allowed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the aforesaid trial under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC registered at Crime No.525/2019 in which, it is alleged that the petitioner opened an account in the name of one Masrur Ahmed Khan, and obtained a sum of Rs.1,78,65,560/- in the aforesaid account by selling the property lying in the name of the complainant, and embezzled the same. In the aforesaid trial, an application was been filed by the Investigating Officer that the petitioners specimen signature would again be required. The application has been filed on the basis of a memo dated 29/04/2024, issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-13 by the State Examiner of the questioned documents, Bhopal, in which, it was requested that the petitioner?s specimen signatures, identical to that of the questioned signature Q2 and Q3, which are the account opening documents, be again sent,.

3. Shri Ajay Bagidia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court allowing the aforesaid application is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as he cannot be allowed to give the specimen signature identical to that of the specimen signature Q2 and Q3 as it would amount the self-incrimination. In support of his submissions, that there is no subsequent stage in which the documents can be filed by the prosecution, learned counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and others v. State of Gujarat and others reported as AIR 2019 SC 5233. Thus, it is submitted that the petition may be allowed, and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Shri Pranay Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the application is filed only with a limited prayer to obtain the specimen signatures as the earlier signatures obtained from the present petitioner were found to be insufficient. In support of his submission, counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Kerala in the case Faizal K.V. v. State of Kerala and another passed CRL. MC No.5660 of 2023 dated 12.7.2023.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. On perusal of the record, it is found that the application dated 29.4.2024, to obtain the specimen signature of the petitioner was in fact addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Indore by the Assistant State Examiner, Police Headquarter, Bhopal and subsequent to that, the letter dated 20.6.2024 was also sent by the State Examiner of questioned document, addressed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, seeking specimen signature and specimen handwriting of the petitioner/accused. It is also found that as per the aforesaid letter, the specimen signature and handwriting, which were earlier obtained from the petitioner have been found to be inadequate in quantity, hence the subsequent specimen signatures have been sought. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the prosecution was trying to further investigate the matter or file any