Telangana High Court
K. Phaneendra Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 16 July, 2025
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 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1790 of 2025 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. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1790 of 2025
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. 4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1790 of 2025
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.2 submitted that the allegations and grounds raised by the petitioner are baseless, fabricated for the purpose of the petition and that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that the case of the complainant is based on Ex.P11, a letter allegedly executed by the accused requesting for a loan, which forms part of the material papers supplied to 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1790 of 2025 the petitioner on 31.05.2022 under Section 207 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that despite having received the case papers, the petitioner did not dispute the signature on Ex.P11 at any relevant stage, neither during the examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C nor at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 01.11.2023, nor during his chief examination as DW1 on 23.01.2024.
9. Learned counsel pointed out that PW1/complainant was examined in chief on 18.10.2022 and cross-examined on 16.05.2023, and it was only after the complainant closed his evidence and the case was posted for arguments of the accused that the petitioner, for the first time, raised the plea of forgery by filing the petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and that there is no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for this belated claim and his long silence regarding the alleged forgery, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the present plea. The belated attempt to question the authenticity of Ex.P11 appears to be a calculated move to delay the proceedings. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1790 of 2025
10. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner filed a petition to send the document marked as Ex.P11 to an expert for opinion, contending that the signature on Ex.P11 does not belong to him. The basis for such a contention is that, during cross- examination, the petitioner stated that he had no acquaintance with the complainant prior to 31.10.2018, whereas Ex.P11 is dated 27.10.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner never approached the complainant for any loan, and the issue of signature identification only arose during the cross-examination of DW1. When DW1 was questioned about Ex.P11, he denied the signature as his. The act of seeking expert opinion on the signature would not cause any prejudice to the complainant, especially if the document is genuine, and in fact, would support the case of the complainant. The denial of the signature at the stage of cross- examination may not, by itself, disentitle the petitioner from seeking verification through expert analysis. Considering that Ex.P11, a document allegedly executed by the petitioner, is dated 27.10.2018 and forms the basis of the transaction in question, and that the petitioner denies any loan transaction 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1790 of 2025 with the complainant, in the interest of a fair trial and to ensure an opportunity to establish his defence, it is just and proper to permit the document to be sent for expert opinion along with contemporaneous admitted signatures of the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6323 of 2024 in C.C.N.I.No.1290 of 2021 on the file of the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to send Ex.P11 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion, along with the petitioner's admitted signatures, and proceed further in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 16.07.2025 SAI