THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4624 of 2010 (Dated: 03-06-2010) Between: T.Satyanarayana …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4624 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner/defacto complainant is stated to be an Advocate. He filed private complaint in the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kukatpally at Miyapur against the respondents 2 and 3 showing them as accused persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 114, 386, 398, 420, 442, 464, 468, 471, 473, 474, and 506(II) IPC. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the said private complaint with endorsement of the Magistrate, the Kukatpally Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.411 of 2010 against the respondents 2 and 3 for the above said offences. During investigation, on requisition filed by the investigating officer, the lower court gave notice to the defacto complainant requiring his attendance before the court for collecting his specimen signatures for onward transmission to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with the original document on 05-06-2010. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the police already gave notice to the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C for production of documents containing his signatures and in response to the said notice the petitioner had already given four or five documents containing his signatures to the investigating officer for making comparison of his signatures with the disputed document. It is also contended that taking signatures of the complainant is not within the scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on reported decision of the Madras High Court in T.Subbaiah Vs. S.K.D.Ramaswamy Nadar ([1]) in this regard. Allegations in the private complaint include A-1 and A-2 forcing the complainant to sign on blank papers stating that the complainant has to pay money and the complainant refusing to sign and finally A-1 and A-2 obtaining the signatures putting the complainant and his wife under fear of death. The investigating officer thought that specimen signatures of the complainant are necessary for making comparison with signatures on the documents which are available on his record. For that reason he made requisition to the lower court for obtaining specimen signatures of the complainant before the lower court. He did not resort to obtaining specimen signatures of the complainant in the police station or in the presence of any mediators. He wanted specimen signatures of the complainant before a Court. But now the petitioner’s counsel contends that the petitioner does not want to give his specimen signatures because there is every likelihood of they being misused against the petitioner and that comparison can be made on the basis of documents furnished by the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. No registered documents containing signatures of the complainant are furnished under Section 91 Cr.P.C. It is not for the petitioner/defacto complainant to dictate terms either to the investigating officer or to the Court with regard to line of investigation or enquiry. The investigating officer is independent to take line of investigation according to the procedure prescribed by law. He cannot be directed by the petitioner to proceed in a particular way only. In case the petitioner does not want to give his specimen signatures before the lower court, then it is open to him not to give his specimen signatures in the lower court. That refusal has to be done by him by making appearance in the Court on 05-06-2010 and informing the lower court about his disinclination to give specimen signatures. Then the necessary consequences for not giving his specimen signatures as per law shall follow, like drawing adverse inference against him, etc., With the said observation, the petition is disposed of. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.03.06.2010 TSNR [1] AIR 1970 MADRAS 85