IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that specimen signatures can be obtained for investigation purposes without arresting the accused, ensuring compliance with procedural rights.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated 23.05.2024 made in Dis. No. 736 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XII Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 5 in FIR No. 909 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that along with one Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni, he was partner of M/s. Matrix Homes and Infratech Ventures LLP and despite holding 60% share in the said firm, the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni had not invested any capital in the company and borrowed funds for the purpose of entering into an agreement with M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited for property development of the land admeasuring 9680 square yards, Yalamanchili, in survey No. 68/P, Serilingampally, Madhapur, in which his mother has invested Rs.5 crores. It was stated that they discovered undisclosed legal disputes related to the said property and the petitioner and the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni assured the respondent No. 2 that the said disputes are minor and collected Rs.90,00,000/- for the purpose of resolution of dispute. They even assured that if the disputes are not resolved, M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited would refund the amount taken by them along with interest. However, the mother of respondent No. 2 passed away on 17.08.2020 and transferred her 60% shares in M/s. Matrix Homes Infrasturcture Limited to him and the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni did not return the money as agreed upon.

3. After about one year of pursuing the matter, the respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the Directors of M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited in Madhapur Police Station and subsequently, he resigned from M/s. Matrix Homes and Infratech Ventures-Limited Liability Partnership [for short ‘LLP’] and despite his resignation, the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni issued resolutions in the year 2023 claiming ownership of recovered funds from M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited and when the respondent No. 2 was in USA, the accused colluded with Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni to create forged document authorizing Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni to settle issues with accused in C.C. No. 492 of 2023 which was compromised before the Lok Adalat, without the knowledge of respondent No. 2.

4. In connection to the said complaint, the trial Court issued notice to the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. vide Dis. No. 736 of 2024 stating that the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station has submitted a requisition to call for the original documents that were available with the petitioner so as to enable the transmission of the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’) for comparison of disputed signatures of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in FIR No. 909 of 2023. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri T.K. Sreedhar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S. Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Smt K. Jayasree, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 agreed for compromise before the Lok Adalat and thereafter, gave a notarized document to establish that the signatures before the Lok Adalat are correct and the same would belong to them. He contended that once the respondent No. 2 has resigned from LLP there cannot be any document settling the claims between the one partner and the respondent No. 2, and that the documents as sought for were never in possession of petitioner. He lamented that so far the petitioner has not received notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. but h