THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 1124 of 2008 Order: This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner to quash the docket order dated 15.02.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, in closing the Crl. M.P. No. 2707 of 2007 in C.C. No.1232 of 2002. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No. 1232 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda. He disputed his signature on Ex.P1 cheque. He filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 2707 of 2007, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying to send Ex.P1 cheque along with his admitted signatures to the hand writing expert for comparison and his opinion. The said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 28.06.2007, wherein it was ordered that the disputed cheque Ex.P1 should be sent to the handwriting expert along with the specimen signatures and admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner was also directed to deposit Demand Draft of Rs.3,000/- in the name of the Director, A.P. State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, towards expert fee. The fees was duly deposited. The said petition was adjourned from 28.06.2007 to 02.07.2007. The docket order dated 02.07.2007 is not filed. However, the docket order dated 12.07.2007 shows that Sri E. Omprakash, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Miryalaguda Branch was present on receipt of summons from the Court and he submitted the account opening form containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused and the matter was adjourned to 23.07.2007 for obtaining the specimen signatures of the petitioner/accused in the open Court. The docket order dated 23.07.2007 is not filed. The docket order dated 22.10.2007 reveals that the counsel for the petitioner/accused filed a memo stating that no standard writings of the accused are available even after thorough search of the documents like note books, diaries, letters etc. In the above circumstances, a letter was addressed to the Director, F.S.L., Hyderabad to give his opinion with regard to the disputed signature on the cheque comparing with the available documents and the matter was adjourned to 12.11.2007. The docket order dated 12.11.2007 is not filed. The docket order dated 07.02.2008 reveals that on 22.01.2008 a letter was received from the Director, A.P. State F.S.L., Hyderabad, stating that the documents have been carefully examined and opinion could not be formed on the available material and requested to send the extensive admitted signatures of the person K. Krishna written in the normal course of business such as letters, bank cheques, bank account forms for the period 2002 for the purpose of comparison. Therefore, the petitioner/accused was directed to file his extensive admitted signatures written in the normal course of business such as letters, bank cheques and bank account opening forms etc., for the period 2002 for the purpose of sending the same to the handwriting expert for comparison and the matter was adjourned to 15.02.2008. The impugned docket order dated 15.02.2008 is as follows. “Absence of complainant condoned on petition. Accused is present. The accused did not comply the docket order, dated 07.02.2008 and he did not file his extensive admitted signatures, written in the normal course of business, such as letters, similar back cheques, bank account opening form etc., of the period of the year, 2002 for the purpose of comparison with regard to the disputed signature of the accused on the cheque. In these circumstances, due to non-co-operation of the accused, Crl.M.P. No.2707 of 2007 is closed. Office is directed to return the Demand Draft worth of Rs.3,000/- deposited by the accused in this Court under proper identification and acknowledgment. For arguments finally, call on 22.02.2008.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court did not consider the fact that the petitioner was present before the Court on all the occasions and the complainant was not appearing before the Court. It is further submitted that due to ill-health the petitioner could not file the letters, cheques and bank account opening forms of Vysya Bank on 15.02.2008 and he could not take any steps to summon those documents from the bank concerned. His main submission is that the lower Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner and that by virtue of closing the Crl.M.P. No. 2707 of 2007 the valuable right accrued to the petitioner seeking the opinion of the expert with regard to the disputed signatures has been lost. It is also submitted that the Criminal Court cannot review its own orders as per Section 362 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the orders passed by the lower Court cause prejudice to the petitioner. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds to allow the petition. A party, who does not approach the Court with clean hands, cannot seek justice. Whether a party has been approaching the Court with clean hands or not can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2707 of 2007 was allowed on 28.06.2007 and the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. It is also not in dispute that the Dy. Manager of the State Bank of India, Miryalaguda branch, as per the summons issued by the Court, furnished the bank account opening form and certain admitted signatures of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the signatures of the petitioner, obtained in the open Court, were also sent to the Handwriting Expert for opinion. Ex.P1 is the disputed cheque filed in C.C. No.1232 of 2002. Admittedly, the signatures of the petitioner were obtained in the open Court in 2007 that is after a period of five years from the date of filing the said case. It is not clear as to on what date the account was opened in the State Bank of India, Miryalaguda branch and when the admitted signatures of the petitioner were obtained in the account opening form. Relevant period means the period during which the disputed signature of the petitioner was made. Normally, the admitted signatures of the relevant period have to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and the Handwriting Experts also insist for the admitted signatures of the relevant period. It appears that same was the request of the Handwriting Expert to send the admitted signatures, handwritings, copies of letters of the relevant period. The memo filed by the petitioner’s counsel dated 22.10.2007 itself reveals that he had categorically stated that no standard writings of the petitioner are available even after thorough search of the documents like note books, diaries, letters etc. Admittedly, the petitioner is a businessman. Therefore, the version of the petitioner that no documents like note books, diaries, letters etc., are available pertaining to the relevant period itself cannot be admitted on its face value. Moreover, a party who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. The docket orders filed by the petitioner itself shows that the case was adjourned from 28.06.2007 to 02.07.2007, but the docket order dated 02.07.2007 is not filed. Further, the matter was adjourned from 12.07.2007 to 23.07.2007 and the docket order dated 23.07.2007 is not filed. It is not the case of the petitioner that though he applied for certified copy of the docket orders of the remaining dates, those docket orders are not supplied to him. The conduct of the petitioner in applying for certified copies of docket orders of certain dates itself shows that he has not come to the Court with clean hands. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a case reported i n P. Venkatramana v. M. Venkataramana[1], wherein it was held that Experts are known for their ability to give opinion, depending upon the manner of hand writing, slant, letters etc. An expert would be in a position to render proper opinion, even if the signatory or author of writing changes the pattern, at a later point of time. That is the very essence of expertise. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the opinion expressed in the said judgment. Normally, if the documents pertaining to the relevant period, showing the handwritings and admitted signatures, are sent, that may be useful to the Expert to come to a correct conclusion. In the circumstances, it is clear that there is no merit in the Criminal Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, since the matter has been pending for more than five years, the learned Magistrate, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order, may dispose of the main case as early as possible, if necessary by conducting day to day trial, preferably within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 23.04.2010 Nsr [1] 2009 (5) ALT 113