K. Ravinder Reddy v. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Amangal, Mahabubnagar District & Anr.

HON’BLE SRI JUSICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1803 of 2008

O R D E R: This petition is filed to quash the order dated 11.01.2008 passed in Crl.M.P. No.4137 of 2007 in C.C. No.312 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalwakurthy.

The petitioner/accused was charged for the offences of presenting fabricated and forged cheques in the name of P.W.1 to a tune of Rs.38,000/- and Rs.20,000/- and encashing the same. A case was filed after investigation for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Earlier an application in Crl.M.P. No.2336 of 2002 was filed for directing the accused to furnish his specimen signatures for the purpose of comparison along with the signature of P.W.1. The said application has been dismissed on 01.4.2003 and the order has become final. Subsequently, the present application has been filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the same relief of summoning the petitioner/accused to take his signatures in the Court and send the same along with the forged cheques. The said application was allowed by the lower court. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned Magistrate is legal and sustainable?

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that since the order in Crl.M.P. No.2336 of 2002 once filed for the same relief having become final, the present application is not maintainable. Though the same contention was raised before the learned Magistrate, it was not properly considered. Evidently, the question before the Court will be as to whether the cheques in dispute were issued by P.W.1 or not and whether the cheques were presented by the accused for the purpose of encashment. If the factum of presentation of cheques by the accused is accepted, then the question whether they are forged cheques or not has to be determined and it can be only with reference to comparison of the signature of the complainant rather than the comparison of the signature of the accused. Therefore, in such circumstances, the material evidence that has to be taken is the comparison of the signature of the complainant with the disputed signatures and not that of the accused with reference to the disputed signatures.

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order of the lower court so far as it relates to a direction to the accused to furnish the specimen signature is not called for, but however, the prosecution is at liberty to send the admitted signatures of the complainant to be compared with the disputed signatures on the cheques for arriving at a conclusion whether the cheques are genuine or not. When once it is to be taken that they are not signed by the complainant, then the question as to the accused has committed forgery or not may not be relevant, since presentation of a forged cheque itself is an offence for the purpose of gaining advantage.