The court upheld the admissibility of expert opinion evidence without requiring arrest, affirming protections against constitutional violations in evidence gathering.

ORDER :

1. 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.

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 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 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