HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2009 DATED.09-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused (For short, ‘the accused’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 16-06-2009 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.20 of 2009 by the Judge, Family Court/III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nellore confirming order dated 24-03-2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No.227 of 2009 in C.C. No.571 of 2006 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. Whereas the Petitioner herein is the accused, the first Respondent herein is the Complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : This is a case of dishonour of a cheque said to be issued by the accused for an amount of Rs.1,90,900/- punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, ‘the Act’). In fact, the accused is not disputing about his signature on the cheque, whereas he filed Crl.M.P. No.227 of 2009 in C.C. No.571 of 2006 before the trial Court seeking to send the cheque in question to handwriting expert for examination and report on the ground that corrections with regards to figures in the cheque were made in addition to presence of certain over writings in the cheque and the trial Court after adducing necessary evidence dismissed the petition opining that the accused had already admitted his signature on the cheque and nothing was found to conclude that material alterations were made therein apparently which order was confirmed in the Criminal Revision Petition No.20 of 2009, on 16-06-2009. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that originally he issued a blank signed cheque towards the debt due by him as a security measure to the complainant and thereafter he cleared the entire debt except Rs.5,000/- and finally he settled that amount also and requested the complainant to return the cheque but subsequently the complainant inflated the amount in the cheque by using chemical eraser and also by forging the signatures of accused and both the Courts below without considering those aspects dismissed the petition and hence accordingly are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. It is pertinent to note here that the accused is not disputing his signature on the cheque. Further, as observed by the Courts below, apparently I do not find any alterations or contradictions on the cheque and as such I also do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. It appears that the petition was filed only for the purpose of delaying the final disposal of the case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-12-2011. Dsh. 358 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2009 December, 09, 2011 DSH