CRLP/12521/2013 of B.Baswa Raju Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the orderdated 16.07.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1077 of 2013 inC.C.No.250 of 2012 on the file of the XV Special Magistrate,Hyderabad, which was confirmed on 01.10.2013 inCrl.R.P.No.272 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional MetropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad.

The facts which led to filing of the present Criminal Petitionare as under:

The second respondent herein filed a private complaintagainst the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said case wastaken on file as C.C.No.250 of 2012. P.W.1 was examined onbehalf of the complainant. His evidence was closed on04.01.2013. During the course of his examination, Ex.P1 (MOU)was marked. On 11.01.2013 the accused was examined underSection 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the substance of thecontents put to him and the matter was posted to 29.01.2013 fordefence evidence. As no defence evidence was adduced, thematter was posted to 06.02.2013. On 06.02.2013, the petitionerfiled Crl.M.P.No.306 of 2012 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recallP.W.1 for further cross examination. The said petition wasallowed and P.W.1 was recalled and cross examined on22.03.2013. The matter was again posted to 10.04.2013 fordefence evidence. On the said day, the petitioner again filed Crl.M.P.No.719 of 2013 for summoning the stamp vendor-P.Murali and to produce the register pertaining to the sale of astamp worth Rs.100/- bearing No. A 793182. The trial Courtallowed the said petition. The stamp vendor was examined asDW1. But the stamp vendor was not in possession of the saidregister as it was in the custody of the Sub-Registrar. Throughthe said stamp vendor, who was examined as D.W.1, the registermaintained by him was marked as Ex.D1 and the signature of theaccused was marked as Ex.D2. The matter was posted to17.06.2013 for adducing further evidence on behalf of theaccused. On 27.06.2013 the petitioner again filedCrl.M.P.No.1076 of 2013 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. requesting theCourt to send the documents of the complainant from the officeof Senior Manager, E.R.Department, Mahindra and Mahindra,Zaheerabad, Medak District to a handing writing expert forcomparison. On the very same day, the petitioner also filedCrl.M.P.No.1077 of 2013 under Section 45 of the Evidence Actrequesting the Court to send the admitted signatures and initialsof the complainant and the accused to the Government Examiner,for comparison and furnishing the opinion.

While things stood thus, the trial Court dismissedCrl.M.P.No.1076 of 2013 on 12.07.2013. After considering therival contentions, the trial Court allowed Crl.M.P.No. 1077 of 2013in part. The court allowed the petition to the extent ofsending the admitted signatures and initials of the accused to theGovernment Examiner for comparison with the disputedsignatures, while rejecting the request of sending the admittedand disputed signatures of the complainant. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioner herein filed Crl.R.P.No.272 of 2013 on thefile of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

The learned Sessions Judge, after considering all the aspects,accepted the reasoning given by the trial Court and dismissed therevision. Assailing the said order, the present Criminal petition isfiled.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedcounsel for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits thatthe Memorandum of Understanding, which was marked as Ex.P1is brought into existence at the instance of the complainant andthe signature on the said Ex.P1 was obtained under threat andcoercion. According to him, the stamp paper was purchased bythe complainant and hence sending of Ex.P1 to an expert forcomparing the signature on Ex.P1 with the admitted signature ofthe complainant is essential for a just decision of the case. Healso submits that signature on Ex.D2 is not that of the accused.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentsopposed the application contending that the present petition isfiled only with a view to delay the proceedings as the impugnedorder itself indicates the manner in which the accused tried toprotract the litigation by filing number of petitions. He submitsthat 16 cases are pending between the parties and every effort isbeing made to delay the prosecution.

Ex.P1-MOU is said to have been executed on 08.07.2006on a stamp paper, which was purchased in the name of theaccused on 07.07.2006. One of the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant haspurchased the stamp paper and the signature of the accused onthe said stamp paper was taken by force. If really, the signature of the accused was taken by force in the year 2006, nothingprevented him from lodging the report immediately thereafter or ifa report is lodged and the police have failed to take action, hecould have filed a private complaint before the competent Courtventilating his grievance. He kept quiet nearly for seven years. After completion of the entire trial, the petitioner has comeforward with the plea that the signature on Ex.P1 was obtainedunder threat or coercion.

P.W.1 was cross examined at length. P.W.1 denied asuggestion put to him with regard to purchase of stamp paper byhim. The witness voluntarily says that the said stamp paper waspurchased by the accused. The stamp vendor was examined asD.W.1. In his evidence in chief, DW1 stated that the recordpertaining to the sale of stamps could not be produced as it wassubmitted to the Sub-Registrar, Vallabhnagar, Begumpet on31.12.2006. At that stage, the chief examination was deferredand he was recalled for further chief examination on 12.06.2013. Referring to the entries made by him in non-judicial stamp saleregister maintained by him, DW1 deposed that the stamp paperworth Rs.100/- was sold to the accused on 07.07.2006. Ex.D1 isthe entry of the same in the said Register. He further deposedthat the person, who purchased the said stamp paper, signedagainst the said entry. Ex.D2 is the signature of the person, whopurchased the stamp paper in Ex.D1. D.W.1 could not identifythe person, who signed on Ex.D1. However, during crossexamination he admits that if any third party purchased the stamppaper on behalf of others, the name of third party would beentered in the above register. He further admits that the entriesmade in Ex.D1 show that the stamp paper was purchased by theaccused himself, since it is noted as “self”.

As rightly held by both the Courts below, there is no needfor sending the documents to an expert for the purpose of provingthat the accused has not purchased the stamp paper, on whichM.O.U. was prepared and that the signature in Ex.D2 was that ofthe complainant. The finding of the Court below cannot be saidto be illegal or perverse, warranting interference under Section482 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion

Further, the material on record further discloses thatnumber of petitions were filed by the petitioner to drag on theproceedings on one pretext or the other. Now the entire evidenceis over and the case is also posted for arguments. For theaforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no merits inthe petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,pending shall stand closed.

Date:30.12.2013gkv

____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J