The High Court of Delhi has observed in Court of its own Motion v. Sfafel that the proviso to Section

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad-

2. Chinthakindi Anjaiah, S/o. Pedda Sathaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ Agriculture, Rio 1-2 10, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana State.

3. Chinthakindi Ramulamma, Wo. Sathaiah, Aged about 82 years, Occ: House hold, R/o 1-210, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dt 20.12.2024 passed by the in Crl.M.P.No.585t2024 in Cr.No.103/2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Choutuppal. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent . No.1 to obtain specimen signatures and thumb impressions of the 2nd & 3'0 respondents in Crl.M.P No.58512024 in cr.No.103/2024 on the file of Junior civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Choutuppal to send the same to FSL for hand writing expert opinion for better adjudication of the above case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitton and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. KONDA SRINIVAS, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2 & 3. The Court made the following ORDER: I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE:\fl EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2491 OF 202$ ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order daled 20.12.2024 in Crl.l\4.P.No 585 of 2024 in Crirne No.103 of 2024 passed by the learned Junior Civil Jud,lr:-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Choutuppal (for sho( "tria (.;ourt") 2 The case of the petitioner before the trial Crturt is that the police made an application vide Crl.tV.P.No.5B5 of 201t4 requesting the Court to issue summons to the complainant and ar;cused Nos.1 and 2 to obtain their thumb impressions, sample sir;natures and handwritings in the open Court for forwarding the serr-re to FSL for analysis. After hearing both sides, the trial Court viJt, order dated

20.12.2024 has partly allowed the petition directing thr: complainant to give his specimen thumb impressions and sampk: signatures in the open Court for forw'arding the same to FSL but the relief sought against accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. Aggrieve,l ty 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.Mladhavi, learned Asslstant public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State.

4. The learned petitioner counser has submitted that the triar Court has made an error in dismissing the petition against accused Nos..l 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 parfly 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 alregations in the compraint are for the offences under Sections 467,468 and 471read with Section 34 of lpC and Section 120(8) of IPC and Section i56(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 J investigation to collect the evidence, the said documerrls need to be sent to FSL for obtaining expert opinion, thus, the pclice have filed the petition before the trial Court. The trial Court har; observed that the arrest of the accused is a precondition to invok,:r the powers under Section 31 1(A) Cr.P.C B. Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference "31 1A. Power of Magistrate to order person to givr: r;pecimen signatures or handwriting. - lf a lt/lagistrate of the rir!;t class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or p'oceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, n: luding an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handvrriting, 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 ,t the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwritrng: Provided that no order shall be made under this sectran r;n/ess the person has at some time been arrested in connectio,t with such investigation or proceedhg "

9. The said proviso is not mandatory but is directo'y in nature.

10. The High Court of Delhi has observed in Court of its own Motion v. Sfafel that the proviso to Section 31 lAof ,he Cr.P.C is directory in nature and not mandatory. Thus, when a petrson appears before the Court or Magistrate, pursuant to the apotic:ation filed.by L Decided on 21.12.2024 --- 4 the lnvestigating Officer, for giving specimen signature or handwriting, it is not essential to arrest him 1'1. 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 31'l-A of the Cr.p.C., to benefit the investigating agency rather than the accused so that the learned Magistratj can rssue an order requiring an accused who is in cust-ody to provide the specimen signature or handwriting without violaiing the rights of accused under either Article 20(3) of the Constitution'of India or the provisions of the Cr.p.C. ln addition, in the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of State ot Bbm"Oay Vs. kathi Kalu Oghad (AlR 1961 SC 1808) it was observed that jiving oispecimen signatuies and handwritings to the police wili no"t amount to testimonial compulsion which is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of lndia and there is no constitutional. bar for ine potice to obtain specimen signatures and handwritings from the accused.,,

12. The dismissal of the said petition would defeat the very purpose of the provision. ln view of the above held discussion and in the light of the said decision, it is held that it would be appropriate to direct accused Nos.1 and 2 to be present in the court to obtain their thumb impressions, sample signatures and handwritings in the open Court for forwarding the same to FSL for analysis. Hence, the petition is entitled to be allowed.

13. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed:rnd the order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. l\tliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall r;tand closed SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASiil :iTANT RTTGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^; CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First (llirss at Choutuppal. 2. One CC to Sri. KONDA SRINIVAS, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for t.re State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

4. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0210912025 ORDER CRLP.No.2491 oI 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWEO A \ t.) 23 l fl[5 D,c -,