THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1790 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6323 of 2024 in C.C.N.I.No.1290 of 2021 by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act before the trial Court seeking to send Ex.P11 letter dated 27.10.2018 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Nampally, for expert opinion by comparing the signature on Ex.P11 with the admitted signature of the petitioner/accused on Ex.P1 cheque dated 31.07.2020. The petitioner contended that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent/complainant company and that the alleged cheque was issued as an intermediary for a business transaction involving a third party. He further asserted that Ex.P11 was a fabricated document containing a forged signature, and that he had taken this defence during the trial, specifically denying the signature during his cross-

examination.

3. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant filed a counter affidavit before the trial Court denying the allegations and contending that the petition was not maintainable either on facts or in law. It was argued that the petitioner never disputed the signature on Ex.P11 at any earlier stage of the proceedings, including during the supply of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the cross-examination of PW1, his own examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, or even during his chief examination as DW1.

4. The trial Court, after hearing both parties and perusing the record vide order dated 21.01.2025, dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner raised the issue of forgery for the first time during his cross-examination and failed to dispute the signature at any earlier stage despite having ample opportunity. The trial Court found the denial of the signature to be not probable and held that there was no necessity to send Ex.P11 for expert opinion. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

5. Heard Sri N. N. Somendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Sri K. Siddarth Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6323 of 2024 in C.C.NI No.1290 of 2021, dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is illegal, contrary to law, and unjustified, and therefore liable to be set aside and that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has seriously disputed the transaction involving a substantial amount of Rs.2,42,08,219/-, based on a cheque allegedly issued for Rs.2 crore, and specifically raised a defence of forgery and fabrication of the Ex.P11 letter dated 27.10.2018. He further submitted that the said letter is crucial to the case and would have a direct bearing on the entire transaction and the defence of the accused.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court wrongly relied on the counter filed by the complainant and erroneously concluded that the petitioner remained silent for over two years without disputing the signature, without appreciating that the accused had no occasion to verify the original signature on Ex.P11 until it was shown to him during cross-examination and that PW1 admitted in cross-examination that he had no acquaintance with the accused before 31.10.2018, whereas Ex.P11 is dated 27.10.2018, which raises serious doubts about its genuineness and indicates that the document was fabricated. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No