IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1988 OF 2009 Between: Nekkanti Rama Rao .....PETITIONER AND Sri Vattikuti Rudra Veera Venkata Varaprasad and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1988 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the order, dated 13.03.2009, in Crl.M.P.No.1889 of 2008 in C.C.No.710 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by the petitioner/A2 in the trial Court to send Ex.P-1 – cheque along with the admitted signature of the petitioner in Ex.P-6 to the Hand Writing Expert for the purpose of comparison and examination of signature in Ex.P-1 with that of the admitted signature of the petitioner in Ex.P-6, was dismissed on the ground that the cheque was dishonoured because of insufficient funds, but not because of non-tallying of signature and that the petition was filed at a belated stage. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is seriously disputing about the signature on Ex.P-1 - cheque, but is admitting the signature on Ex.P-6 - Promissory Note; that as a matter of fact, when the first respondent/complainant was examined in the Court, a specific suggestion was made to him to the effect that the signature on Ex.P-1 is not that of the petitioner and the same was denied by him and therefore, immediately after knowing about the denial of the said suggestion, at appropriate time, the present petition is filed and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. When the notice is sent to the first respondent, it is returned as not claimed by the first respondent. Therefore, it is a deemed service. 4. Admittedly, the complaint is lodged by the first respondent against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, basing on Ex.P-1, which is the cheque said to have been issued by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent/complainant. The petitioner/A2, who is representing A1 – firm, denied the signature on Ex.P-1, but admitted the signature on Ex.P-6, which is a promissory note. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not signed on Ex.P-1. Necessarily that plea has to be established by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner rightly filed the petition for comparison of signature on Ex.P-1 with that of the admitted signature available on Ex.P-6. The trial Court ought to have allowed the petition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 13.03.2009, in Crl.M.P.No.1889 of 2008 in C.C.No.710 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.1889 of 2008 filed by the petitioner is allowed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 12, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1988 OF 2009 August 12, 2010