Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Terla Mallikarjuna Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
1
APHC010008752026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 151/2026
Between:
1. TERLA MALLIKARJUNA RAO, S/O NARASIMHA RAO,AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. POTTISREERAMULU
STREET, RLY.KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL,ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF AMARAVATHI.
2. YADALLA SANKARAIAH, S/O Y. SANJEEVARAYULU,AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS,BUSINESS, DOOR NO. 1/75, OLD BAZAAR
STREET,RLY.KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL,ANNAMAYYA DIST.
PREVIOUSLY YSR KADAPA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to Quash Order in Crl.M.P.No.l
151/2025 dated 24.11.2025 in C.C.No.247 OF 2015 On the File of The
Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur and to
consequently allow the petitioner's application under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act and to transmit cheque No.762399 dated 10.10.2013 (Ex.Pl)
along with extensive admitted signatures of the petitioner around the relevant
period, as may be available or obtained, to the appropriate Forensic Science
Laboratory/APFSL for expert comparison and opinion and to pass
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the
High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in respect
of C.C.No.247 OF 2015 On the File of The Honourable Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Railway Kodur and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VMR LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 151/2026
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, "the Cr.P.C.") / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, "the BNSS"), seeking to quash the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1151 of 2025 in C.C.No.247 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur, and consequently to allow the petitioner's application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by transmitting Cheque No.762399 dated 10.10.2013 (Ex.P1), along with extensive admitted signatures of the petitioner around the relevant period, as may be available or obtained, to the appropriate Forensic Science Laboratory / APFSL for expert opinion and comparison.
2. Heard Sri Venkatesh B. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.K.Lakshmi Priyanka, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.247 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of the trial, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1151 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the original cheque bearing No.762399 dated 10.10.2013 (Ex.P1) to an expert for comparison of the signatures along with 4 the admitted signatures of the accused in vakalath, deposition of the accused, served summons, and along with other contemporary signatures of the accused, if so requires.
4. Learned counsel would further submit that the said application was dismissed on the ground that in a similar matter between the parties i.e., Crl.M.P.No.1366 of 2018 in C.C.No.128 of 2016, an application filed by the complainant to send the cheque dated 10.10.2013 along with admitted signatures of the accused for expert opinion and the same was allowed. However, the said cheque was returned by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, seeking more admitted signatures of the accused. Subsequently, the registered mortgage deed dated 19.03.2010 was sent to TSFSL, Hyderabad, which was returned on the APFSL is bifurcated. Thereafter, a letter dated 21.09.2020 was addressed to the Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri, on 29.09.2020 the same was returned with a request to re-transmit the same along with extensive admitted signatures of the accused around the year 2013 for the purpose of comparison. Eventually, another petition filed by the complainant and the same was dismissed on the ground that there were no extensive admitted signatures available for comparison.
5. Learned counsel would further submit that even the complainant himself had filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the original cheque to the expert for comparison of the signatures of the accused, for different reasons he could not succeed. Learned counsel would further submit that the accused may be afforded a fair opportunity to place his 5 contemporaneous admitted signatures on record for the purpose of expert comparison. Learned counsel also submits that notice to the respondent/complainant may be dispensed with, as there is no adverse or contrary interest, except for sending the document for expert opinion.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
7. Considering the submissions made by both sides, it is apposite to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself, so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the main case pending before the trial Court. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application filed by the petitioner/accused was dismissed mainly on the ground that allowing such application may cause further delay, and that even earlier attempts made by the complainant to obtain expert opinion could not succeed due to non- availability of extensive admitted signatures.Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to place before the trial Court extensive admitted signatures pertaining to the relevant period to pursue his case.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1151 of 2025 in C.C.No.247 of 2015 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to place his extensive admitted signatures pertaining to the relevant period before the trial Court within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such compliance, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. If the 6 petitioner fails to place the admitted signatures within the stipulated period, the present petition shall stand dismissed automatically, and the trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Dated 7.01.2026 KKV