APHC010403382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5959/2023 Between: Karri Venkata Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/1st respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1920 of 2023 in C.C.No.4983 of 2022 seeking the relief of referring the Exhibits P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6 for expert opinion to compare 2 the genuinity of the signatures appearing on the said exhibits and also to determine the age of ink on the exhibits. 3. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.07.2023 dismissed the petition by recording the reason that the petitioner has not cross-examined the witness with regard to the signatures appearing on the exhibits which are now sought to be referred for handwriting expert opinion. It is also recorded by the learned Magistrate that there was a compromise between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and in that regard, the 2nd respondent has filed a memo dated 25.07.2019 along with the receipt for Rs.1,00,000/-. Having entered into the compromise and promised to pay the remaining cheque amount by the next date of hearing i.e., on 10.04.2020, the attempt of the petitioner after three years to refer the exhibits marked for handwriting expert is for only delaying the process of law. The prayer for ascertaining the age of ink was also rejected by the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly the 2nd respondent has paid a part of the cheque amount and promised to pay the balance cheque amount for settling the claim and compound the offence. The present petition is filed only to delay the due process of law and draws attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Transfer Criminal Petition No.121 of 2019, dated 20.06.2022, whereby this Court while allowing transfer of the case from the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 3 Vijayawada to the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. This Court also observed that the calendar case is of the year 2018, and as such the Magistrate was directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. This Court while admitting the petition on 14.08.2023 granted stay of all further proceedings considering the submissions of the petitioner that the question raised by the petitioner would have to be considered during the course of final hearing. The petitioner has not raised the dispute with regard to the genuinity of the signatures at any point of time when the trial was conducted and examination of PW1 was completed. It is also evident that the petitioner has raised the plea of dispute in signatures on exhibits of P1 to P6 after a period of three years and section 313 examination was also over and at the stage of arguments, the present petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1920 of 2023. 6. This Court finds no grounds to interfere in the well considered and well reasoned order of the learned Magistrate and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 09.04.2025 BMS