The High Court · 2025

I The State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the litlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order passed in Cr1 .lV.P. No. 62 of 2025 in C.C. No. 131 of 2017, on the file of ll Additional Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani, dated 06-05-2025, thereby allow the said Crl.M.P. as prayed for This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKA,RAMJI CRIMINAI- PETITION No.7579 OF 20its ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (for short 'the BNSS') r;eeking quash the order dated 06.05 2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2(125 in C.C.No.131 of 20'17 on the-' file of the learned ll Additional Judicial lr4agistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani

2. The petitioner is accused for the offence under"Section 138 of Negotiable lnstruments Act. 1881

3. I have heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veerarnalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for lhe respondent No.2-State

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as follows: during the course of enquiry in tl.C.No.131 oi 2017, the petitioner/accused filed a petition under Section 45 of the lndian Evidence Act, requestinl;1 that the disputed medical prescription, along with a sample of the comprlainant's admitted handwriting, be referred to ihe Telangana Government Forensic Science Laboratory (TGFSL), Hyderabad, ,'or expert forensic comparison. The purpose of the request was to ascertain the authenticity of the handwriting on the prescription, which the petitioner contends war,; authored by the complainant. [Jpon considering the submissions advan,]ed by both sides 2 and evaluating the matter on its merits, the trial Court rejected the - petition. Challenging the legality and propriety of that order, the petitioner has now filed the present revision petition

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, according to the petitioner, the prescription in question was authored by the de facto complainant, who is a registered medical practitioner bearing Registration No. 181805398. However, during cross-examination, when confronted with the said prescriptions, the complainant denied that the handwriting thereon was his. lt is the case of the petitioner that a forensic comparison of the disputed prescriptions with the complainant's admitted handwriting would establish that the documents were indeed authore,J by the complainant. This, in turn, would lend credence to the petitioner's assertion that the complaint filed by the de facto complainant is faise and fabrlcateci. A positive forensic match wouicj directly undermine the complainant's denial of authorship, thereby casting significant doubt on his vei'acity and overall credibility as a witness. ln light of the above, it is contended that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the petition and directed the forwarding of the documents for expert analysis. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks indulgence from this Court to permit such examination in the interest of justice.

6. I have perused the materials on record 3

7. Having considered the submissions of learnc'd cotrnsel for the petitioner, it is noted that the prosecution in the prest;nt case pertains to an offence under Section 138 of the Nl Act, relating tc: the dishonour of a cheque The principal issue before the trial Court corrcerns the issuance of the cheque and other material facts relevant to the alleged offence none of which have been disputed in the present petiti:n.

8. The petitioner seeks to refer certain medical prescriptions, allegedly authored by respondenl No. 2/the de facto compl;linant, for forensic analysis. These documents, when shown to the ::omplainant during cross-examination, were denied by him as not being in his handwriting. However, the authorship of the prescriptions is rlot central to the determination of the offence under Section 138 of the Nl Act. Even if it is eventually established that the handwriting on the prescriptions belongs to the de fado complainant, it is not apparent how s lch a finding would substantively aid the petitioner's defence. The only bai;is advanced is that it would reflect upon the credibility of the complain ant. However' in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnslruments Act, which is predominantly technical in nature and rests primatily on documentary evidence. Arrcillary or peripheral issues that bear no direct relevance to the execution, issuance, or dishonour of the chequ,e do not materially contribute to the adjudication of the principal allegations. The Court's focus must remain on the existence of a legally er'forceable debt, the issuance of the cheque in discharge of such debt, and its subsequent 4 dishonour. Therefore, this Court finds merit in the conclusion reached by - the trial Court, which rightly rejected the petitioner's application. ln the absence of any cogent or legally tenable grounds to interfere with the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly liable to be dismissed

9. ln the result, this criminal petition is dismissed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. sd/-s MALUKAII"T$EIR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, PeddaPalli District '1 . The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani' 2. The Station House Officer, NTPC Police Station' NTPC' Peddapalli District 3. One CC to SRI K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies ,an ( rt-- VM/PSL HIGH GOURT DATED: 2510612025 I ORDER CRLP.No.7579 ot 2025 _--.=.:- :.-,.... ' -r !1[. :; i-i' '( -,+ /t <-' 'irE SIP Ll0?5 _.: / t ::, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ .1 ,Ir-----1--1 ''t(t1ri'-