THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7187 OF 2025 % Dated:17.07.2025 # K. Radha Krishna @ K. Radha Krishnan, S/o. Late Sri K. Balaram, aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.G-107, Manjeera Diamond Towers, Nallagandla, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. C. Sharan Reddy ^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred (2024) 12 SCC 165 THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7187 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in Crl.M.P No.739 of 2025 in C.C.NI.No.669 of 2022, aggrieved by the docket order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned IX Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. The said Crl.M.P. was filed with a prayer to sent Exs.P1 and P2 marked in C.C.NI.No.669 of 2022 to the forensic science laboratory to compare handwriting.

2. A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by Respondent 2 (R-2). Accused is the brother-in-law of R-2, he approached R-2, for a hand loan of Rs.11,00,000/- in May, 2018, to start a provision stores. Cash of Rs.11,00,000/- was given. R-2 requested payment, accused failed to repay the amount. Accused executed a promissory note (Ex.P1) and a cheque (Ex.P2)

bearing No.055499 dated 25.07.2019 for Rs. 11,00,000/- drawn on Axis bank, Durg, Chhattisgarh, was given. Cheque was presented in the bank, was returned dishonored on 31.07.2019. Legal notice dated 23.08.2019 was issued and delivered on 28.08.2019, still amounts were not paid, hence complaint.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused invited the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of PW.1 (Page No.19) and submitted that the complainant was examined as PW.1 and in the cross examination, he had deposed that the writing on the promissory note (Ex.P2) and the cheque (Ex.P1) is of the accused, (the hand writing on the instruments is disputed by the accused). It is further submitted that the complainant obtained the blank promissory note and the blank cheque from accused for raising the loan amount from a third party. That, as he could not secure the loan, misused the instruments and filed the case. Relying on the depositions, it is submitted that as the complainant had deposed that the instruments are filled by the accused and is denied by accused, it is contended that it is a fit case for forwarding Exs.P1 and P2 to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparing the writing on the of the said exhibits/documents.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that, once the promissory note and cheque are given to the complainant by signing them, it is not a requirement under law that for the hand writing (contents filled up on the instruments), instruments be sent to FSL for examination, as such no interference is necessary.

5. Heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1– State. Perused the material on record.

6. Respondent No.2/complainant is the brother-in-law of petitioner/accused. It is the case of the accused that the complainant obtained the blank promissory note and blank cheque to obtain a loan from third party and as he could not get the loan, he filed the case by misusing the same.

7. A petition in Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2025 came to be filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, by the accused with the following prayer:

“Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to send the promissory note (Ex.P1) and the cheque (Ex.P2) to Forensic Science Laboratory for the hand writing