1 APHC010699702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13531/2025 Between: 1. P AMJAD KHAN, S/O. LATE.P. AMANUIIAH KHAN,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O. DOOR NO.4-20, BILVAMANU STREET,BANGARUPALYAM POST AND MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATHI. 2. M POORNAACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. LATE MUNASWAMI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESSR/O.KALLURUPALLE VILLAGE, K.G.SATHRAM POST.BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking quashment of the order dated 12.11.2025 in 2 Crl.M.P. No. 810 of 2025 in C.C. No. 1034 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. 2. Heard Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is on correct lines and prays for dismissal of the present petition. 5. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel representing both sides, and on a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is revealed that a petition was filed before the trial Court seeking to send Ex.P1 cheque to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, to determine the age of the ink used in the signature on Ex.P1 cheque and to direct the expert to examine the genuineness of the said cheque. The learned trial Judge observed that the pen used for the signature might have been manufactured several years prior to its actual use. In the present case, the petitioner/accused has admitted his signature on Ex.P1 and stated that he handed over the cheque in the year 2013. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner’s version is correct, namely that he issued the cheque in 2013, the pen used by the 3 complainant or any other person to fill in the body of Ex.P1 might also have been manufactured in or around that time. Therefore, determination of the age of the ink is not feasible, and moreover, there is no technology currently available in India to accurately determine the age of the ink. 6. The composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Balakrishna 1 , with regard to the expert opinion on determination of age of ink held that mere determination of age, even if there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the signature. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, there is no necessity to send Ex.P1 cheque to an expert. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Judge, and the same do not warrant interference by this Court and this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 02.01.2026. Asr 1 2014 AIR AP 37 4 THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13531 OF 2025 Dated : 02.01.2026 Asr