THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2491 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 20.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.585 of 2024 in Crime No.103 of 2024 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Choutuppal (for short “trial Court”).

2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that the police made an application vide Crl.M.P.No.585 of 2024 requesting the Court to issue summons to the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 to obtain their thumb impressions, sample signatures and handwritings in the open Court for forwarding the same to FSL for analysis. After hearing both sides, the trial Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 has partly allowed the petition directing the complainant to give his specimen thumb impressions and sample signatures in the open Court for forwarding the same to FSL but the relief sought against accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the complainant.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri Konda Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

4. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the trial Court has made an error in dismissing the petition against accused Nos.1 and 2 and that it is most essential to collect the expert evidence in this case to ascertain the genuineness of the impugned documents.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court has partly allowed the petition observing that the arrest of the accused is a precondition for obtaining specimen signatures of a person and that the accused in the present case are not arrested, hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the record.

7. The allegations in the complaint are for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the allegations of the complaint point out forgery and the usage of forged documents alleged to have been made by the accused. As a part of investigation to collect the evidence, the said documents need to be sent to FSL for obtaining expert opinion, thus, the police have filed the petition before the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that the arrest of the accused is a precondition to invoke the powers under Section 311(A) Cr.P.C.

8. Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. — If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:

Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.”

9. The said proviso is not mandatory but is directory in nature.

10. The High Court of Delhi has observed in Court of its own Motion v. State, Decided on 23.12.2024 that the proviso to Section 311A of the Cr.P.C is directory in nature and not mandatory. Thus, when a person appears before the Court or Magistrate, pursuant to the application filed by

the Investigating Officer, for giving specimen signature or handwriting, it is not essential to arrest him.

11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the Crl.P.No.6449 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024 has observed at para No.14, which reads as follows:

“The word “arrest” has been used in relation to the provisions of Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C., to benefit the investigating agency rather than the accused so that the lear