APHC010083982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2134/2025 Between: E Mallikarjun ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is seeking the quashment of the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1827 of 2024 in C.C. No. 171 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is disputing the signatures on the promissory notes relied upon by the 2nd respondent in C.C. No. 171 of 2019, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has filed Crl.M.P. No. 1827 of 2024 2 before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, seeking a direction to refer the promissory note for handwriting expert opinion. The learned Magistrate dismissed Crl.M.P. No. 1827 of 2024 vide order dated 09.10.2024. 3. It is submitted that the entire case of the petitioner relies on the genuineness of the signature on the promissory note. It is further submitted that the petitioner is disputing the signature and, as such, has filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.P.1, along with other documents containing the standard signatures of the petitioner/accused, for comparison. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in dismissing the petition without assigning any reasons. 4. After perusing the record, the learned Magistrate has given a finding that the petitioner has taken a stand in O.S. No. 748 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. In the written statement, the petitioner contended that the promissory notes and cheques were stolen, and the said written statement was also marked as Ex.P8. In Ex.P8, the petitioner/accused admitted the promissory notes and cheques. 5. Considering the contrary view taken by the petitioner in the defense evidence and in Ex.P8 (i.e., the written statement), the learned Magistrate has dismissed the aforementioned Crl.M.P. filed by the petitioner. This Court finds no grounds to interfere, as the learned Magistrate has passed a well-reasoned order. The learned Magistrate also considered the signatures on the other 3 documents that were sought to be sent for expert opinion. The learned Magistrate gave a finding that the documents sought to be sent for expert opinion are not authenticated, and as such, found it appropriate to dismiss the petition. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 03.03.2025 PNS