APHC010650992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12515/2025 Between: 1. PALAPARTHY SIVA KUMAR, S/O LATE KONAIAH SARMA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC TEACHER R/O D.NO. 666, 6TH LANE, 2ND CROSS, PANDARIPURAM GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SURYADEVARA LAVANYA, W/O VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 5-356A, HANUMANPALEM VILLAGE, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR A.P HIGH COURT COMPOUND NELAPADU, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 237 ...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 pleased to grant permission to send the documents i.e., cheque and alleged promissory note for expert opinion, by allowing the Crl.M.P.No.3735 of 2025 in C.C No.595/2020, on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, and quashing the orders dated 25-09-2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 3735 of 2025 in C.C No.595/2020, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. YADLAPALLI VENKATA KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief: “ ... to grant permission to send the documents i.e., cheque and alleged promissory note for expert opinion, by allowing the Crl.M.P.No.3735 of 2025 in C.C No.595/2020, on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, and quashing the orders dated 25.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3735 of 2025 in C.C.No.595/2020, and pass ...” Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner herein is Accused and respondent No.1 is the complainant in CC No.595 of 2020. It is alleged that the petitioner herein borrowed some amounts from the respondent No.1 in the year 2020, and executed Ex.P1/Promissory note, subsequently issued Ex.P2/cheque dated 21.10.2020. The Respondent No.1 presented the said cheque in bank on 30.10.2020, which was returned with an endorsement „insufficient funds‟. The Respondent No.1 got issued a legal notice to the petitioner and since the petitioner did not take any steps for repayment of the amount, the Respondent No.1 filed complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is the subject matter in CC No.595 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. In the said case, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act vide Crl.M.P.No.3735 of 2025 praying the Trial Court to send Exs.P1 and P2 to the Handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures. The Learned Magistrate by impugned Order dated 23.10.2020 dismissed the said petition and the present criminal petition is filed challenging the dismissal order of Trail Court. 3 Heard Sri Y.V.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner borrowed amounts in the year 2018 from respondent No.1, towards security of the said amount, he gave six empty signed cheques drawn on State Bank of India, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur to respondent No.1. Further, in the month of November, 2020, respondent No.1 presented five cheques for collection in her bank, after collection and she did not present sixth cheque and the same is with her. When Petitioner called and asked respondent No.1, why she presented the cheques, she replied that she presented the said cheques by mistake, after receipt of legal notice, petitioner discharged the entire amount, along with interest to respondent No.1, and requested her to return the six empty signed cheques which were given at the time of borrowing the amount. The Respondent No.1 replied that the cheques were with her counsel and subsequently, private complaints were filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are subject matters of CC Nos.3 of 2021, 593 of 2020, 594 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Magistrate of First class, Tenali. Further, the petitioner did not execute any promissory note in favour of respondent No.1 at any point of time and that Petitioner has discharged the entire debt amount to her but she did not return the same. To prove his contentions, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3735 of 2025 requesting to send the Ex.P1 and P2 to 4 handwriting expert opinion to compare the signatures on Ex.P1 with the signatures on the Ex. P.2 i.e. pronote and the said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court by way of the order impugned. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. As can be seen from the impugned order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that Petitioner did not file any admitted or contemporary signatures of relevant point of time of execution of Ex.P1/Promissory note dated 15.01.2020 and in the absence of the same, Ex.P1 cannot be compared. Further, there is no dispute about the signatures of the Petitioner on six cheques which have been issued as a security. Further, petitioner is denying his signature on the promissory note/Ex.P1 stating that complainant has created such document by forging his signature to establish a legally enforceable debt. Learned counsel would finally submit that the subject cheques were marked as Ex.P2 which contains admitted signatures of the Petitioner. Further, the admitted signatures of the Petitioner with the contemporary signatures in CC NO.593 of 2020 period on the subject pronote are available in this CC in other CCs between the same parties which are also pending before the same Court. As rightly put by learned counsel for the Petitioner the learned Magistrate misconceived the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ahitsingh Chehuji Rathod V. State of Gujarat and Anr.1 In the said case, the matter is pending 1. 2024 INSC 63 5 before the Appellate court, in that context, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the Appellate Court need not come to the aid and assistance of the accused for collecting defence evidence at his behest. In the facts of the present case, the only reason assigned by the learned Trial Judge is that the petitioner did not submit his admitted signatures for the contemporary period. In the light of the submissions made, the admitted signatures of the for the relevant period are available in CC Nos.3 of 2021, 593 of 2020, 594 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Magistrate of First Class, Tenali. A fair opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to prove his contention before the Trial Court, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 23.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3735 of 2025 in CC No.595 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, is hereby set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to take steps to send the subject pronote and the cheques for expert opinion and proceed with the matter for disposal, at the earliest point of time, without granting any adjournment in a casual way. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 09.12.2025 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 12515 of 2025 09.12.2025 Mjl /*