O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the docket order dated 06.10.2023 in C.C.No.130 of 2010 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr.R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Mohd. Gulam Hyder, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “NI Act”). Whileso, learned counsel for the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.1983 of 2011 in C.C.No.130 of 2010 before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. District under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the documents such as Ex P1/promissory note, Ex P2/cheque to the expert for the purpose of comparison of the signature and thumb impressions on the said documents by taking specimen signatures and thumb impression of the accused. The learned Judge, vide order dated 30.12.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1983 of 2011 in C.C.No.130 of 2010, had allowed the said application.

4. The learned Special Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Ibrahimpatnam vide order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.1058 of 2019 in C.C.No.29 of 2014 had called for Ex P1/original promissory note dated 12.02.2008 from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam for sending the same to Finger Print Bureau.

5. The complainant in C.C.No.130 of 2010, did not want to send the said promissory note for expert opinion. Therefore, the trial Court stopped to proceed with the Crl.M.P.No.1983 of 2011 in C.C.No.130 of 2010 and posted the matter for arguments on 26.10.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.2 had filed a memo on 06.10.2023 before the trial Court stating that he did not want to send the promissory note for finger print expert as the same would delay the proceedings.

Therefore, the trial Court stopped proceeding with the Crl.M.P. No.1983 of 2011 in C.C.No.130 of 2010, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and seeks to allow this Criminal Petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Assistant Director, Andhra Pradesh Foresic Science Laboratories, upon examining the documents in C.C.No.130 of 2010 rendered her opinion on 13.05.2014, stating that “the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 and S58 also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked Q1 and Q2” and stated that the documents may be sent to Director, Fingerprint Bureau, D.G.P. Office Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad for examination of thumb impressions.

8. He further states that the matter is posted for the stage of arguments on 26.10.2023; therefore, recalling the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the trial Court, will hamper the active progress of the case and seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

9. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the copy of the expert opinion dated 13.05.2014 rendered by the Assistant Director, Andhra Pradesh Foresic Science Laboratories, this Court is of the opinion that sending the document to finger print expert would cause delay in dispensing with justice. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court and hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 18.02.2025 ESP