\ - APHC010354402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7389 OF 2025 Between: D.Chandra Kumar, s/o Late D.Kadirappa, Age: 59 Years, Clerk in Sate Bank of India, ADB Branch, Hindupur, Sri Sathya Sai District ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused AND B.Gangadharappa, s/o Narasimhappa, Age 75 Years Veerakethamma Temple, Kallumarri, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District 1. Priest, ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravati 2. ...Respondent 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 Orders dated 23.06.2025 in CRLMP.No.223 of 2025 in STC.No.284 of 2023 on the file of The Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira consequently pass orders for sending the Exhibit P1 to the Hand Writing Expert along with admitted signatures of the Petitioner herein for his opinion with respect to genuinity of signatures found on the r r 4 Exhibit P1 Cheque bearing No.464702 dated 28.07.2023 drawn on State Bank of India, Kallumarri Branch. lA NO: 1 OF 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 stay all further proceedings in STC.No.284 of 2023 on the file of The Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira pending disposal of the Quash Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner ADVOCATE Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI K.JOSEPH, ADVOCATE Counsel for Respondent No.2 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. The Court made the following : : SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, ^ / / APHC010354402025 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7389/2025 Between; 1.D CHANDRA KUMAR, S/0.LATE D.KADIRAPPA AGE 59 YEARS, CLERK IN SATE BANK OF INDIA, ADB BRANCH, HINDUPUR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ..^PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.B GANGADHARAPPA, S/0 NARASIMHAPPA, AGE 75 YEARS, PRIEST, VEERAKETHAMMA TEMPLE, KALLUMARRI, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482- of Cr.P.C and 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 Orders dt.23,06.2025 in CRLMP.No,223 of 2025 in STC.No.284 of 2023 on the file of The Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira consequently pass orders for sending the Exhibit PI to the Hand Writing Expert along with admitted signatures of the Petitioner herein for his opinion with respect to genuinity of signatures found on the Exhibit PI Cheque bearing No.464702 dt.28.07.2023 drawn on State Bank of India, Kallumarri Branch and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. K JOSEPH t 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: % The instant Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short 'Cr.P.C.') for the following relief: " to quash the Orders dt.23.06.2025 in CRLMP.No.223 of 2025 in STC.No.284 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira consequently pass orders for sending the Exhibit PI to the Hand Writing Expert along with admitted signatures of the Petitioner herein for his opinion with respect to genuinity of signatures found on the Exhibit PI Cheque bearing No.464702 dt.28.07.2023 drawn on State Bank of India, Kallumarri Branch and pass such ...." The petitioner herein is accused in STC No.284 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondent No.l is the Complainant. The petitioner filed petition under Sec.39 of BSA, before the s Trial Court seeking to send Ex.P. 1/Cheque to the expert for opinion after comparison with the signatures of accused in other documents available on record. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court vide Order dated 23.06.2025. The present petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of Trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent No.l. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that respondent No. 1/complainant is not the holder of the cheque and he forged the signatures of the petitioner on the Ex.PI/ cheque. As such, it is necessary that the signatures of petitioner be compared with his available admitted signatures, by a j handwriting expert. Further, during cross-examination of P.W:l, it is elicited that there is a difference regarding the signature of petitioner on Ex.Pl/cheque to that of his signature on Ex.P5/postal acknowledgement. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/complainant would submit that the signatures of the petitioner which are after institution of the case, are not valid signatures as there is every chance to change the style of signature and that petitioner ought to have provided his signatures of contemporaneous period and that there is no'merit in the contention of the Petitioner. Learned counsel finally submits that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and it requires no interference of this Court. A bare perqsal of the material placed on record would clearly go to show that there are money transactions between the parties. The allegations raised against the Petitioner involve disputed factual aspects, with regard to the signature on Ex.Pl/Cheque. As seen from the order impugned order. Paragraph -10 reads as under: 10. With regard to signature on Vakalathnama, it was signed by the accused subsequent to the institution of the case and in the light of the above decision in Ryalia pevadas vs.Sivapuram Rama Yqneswara Rao, it cannot be considered as an admitted signature as there is every chance for the accused to change his style of signature on the Vakalthnama. Even as can be seen from the signatures of the accused on examination under section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code conducted by this court with that of the examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, they are not similar to each other. The petitioner/accused, having taken up a contention that Ex.Pl cheque was issued to the respondent/complainant prior to 2019 and it was misused by the respondent, as suggested to P.W.l during the of cross examination, ought to have produced some admitted signatures of the contemporary period instead of asking the court for I i course -4‘ - 4 comparison of the signature with that of the year 2024 and 2025 which long after the said signature on Ex.PI cheque, as pleaded by the accused. are In the light of discussion above, as rightly put by ^learned counsel for Respondent No.l, the impugned order is a well reasoned order and it requires j no interference of this Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- T.SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTidN OFFICER To. 1. The Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira, Anantapuram District. 2. One CC to Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.Joseph, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAC j Ts- r HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7389 OF 2025 DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION