THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5588 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.481 of 2023 in C.C.No.206 of 2015 by the learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Husnabad (for short “trial Court”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.481 of 2023 in C.C.No.206 of 2015 to send certain documents to handwriting expert as he disputed his signature on Ex.P6 i.e. the acknowledgment card and also on the cheque. He further argued that unless the petitioner’s signature is sent to the handwriting expert, the actual position involved in the CC cannot be resolved and when he disputed the signatures, it is the duty of the trial Court to send the document to expert opinion but the trial Court has failed to send the same. He further submitted to quash the said orders and allow the petition to send the disputed documents for expert opinion.

4. The notice was sent to the respondent No.2-defacto complainant but the same is returned as unclaimed, which is deemed to be served.

5. Perused the record. C.C.No.206 of 2015 is filed against the petitioner/accused under Section 138 NI Act, 1881. The petitioner disputed his signature and thus, filed a petition before the trial Court asking the trial Court to send the documents for handwriting expert. He disputed the signatures on the notice alleged to have been sent by the de facto complainant and thus, he prayed the trial Court to send the same to hand writing expert. The said Crl.M.P. was dismissed by the trial Court against which the present petition is preferred.

6. The record discloses that the petitioner in the Crl.M.P.No.481 of 2023 has disputed his signature only on the acknowledgment card which was filed as Ex.P6 before the trial Court. His case is that he has not received any legal notice under Ex.P4 and he further pointed out that he has denied the same in his cross examination stating that his signature on Ex.P6/acknowledgment card does not belong to him. Thus, he has prayed the Court to send his admitted signatures on the vakalath and the disputed signatures on the acknowledgment card under Ex.P6 to the expert.

The trial Court has dismissed the same.

7. It is to be observed that during his cross examination he has not disputed the signatures on the cheque but he has only disputed the signature on Ex.P6. The trial Court has further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in C.C.Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 5 Supreme 277, wherein it was held that any drawer of the cheque did not receive the notice sent by the post, can approach the Court within 15 days of receipt of summons from the Court in respect of the complaint under 138 of NI Act and make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. The said approach is not made by the complainant, though he alleges that he has not received any notice and he disputes the signature on notice. There is no dispute with regard to the signature on the cheque, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the petition, hence, the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 07.08.2025 ns