AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
Heard Sri M.Dharma Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S.Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for unofficial respondent and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, at Ongole, Prakasam District for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; he filed an application U/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.P-1 cheque and Ex.P-7 promissory note to a hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures of the accused and hand writings of the complainant available on the cheque and promissory note.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has no acquaintance with the complainant and that the promissory note was a forged document, and therefore, he requested the learned Magistrate to send the cheque and the promissory note to a hand writing expert for his opinion on the writings available on the cheque and the promissory note; but, the learned Magistrate refused the request of the accused that he filed application after lapse of several years to protract the trial proceedings; therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law.
The learned counsel for unofficial respondent/complainant would submit that there is no dispute that a legal notice was issued to the accused by the complainant, after dishonor of the cheque as mandated U/s.138 of N.I.Act; the accused received the notice and did not issue any reply at the earliest point denying the contention of the complainant regarding issuance of cheque and execution of the promissory note; his contention was that blank cheque and blank promissory note signed by the accused were used in the name of the complainant for unlawful gain; and in the light of said facts and circumstances, and as the application was filed after 7 years of appearance of the accused before the learned Magistrate, the request of the petitioner was rightly refused by the learned Magistrate, as the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings, though the case is pending for the last 7 or 8 years before the learned Magistrate.
In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Petition is as under:
“Whether there are grounds to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.506/2024 in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrae of First Class at Ongole, Prakasam District”?
POINT:
There is no dispute that the complaint against the petitioner for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act was filed in the year 2017. The present application was filed in the year 2024. There is no dispute that the petitioner/accused did not give any reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant U/s.138 of N.I.Act, soon after dishonor of the impugned cheque for “insufficient funds” in the account of the petitioner/accused.
It appears that the contention of the petitioner is that the blank cheque and blank promissory note signed by him were pressed into service in the name of the complainant for unlawful gain. Therefore, in the light of said facts and circumstances, where under, the petitioner admits his signature on the cheque and promissory note, and thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to send the impugned cheque and promissory note to a hand writing expert for his opinion with regard to signatures of the accused on the cheque and promissory note.
Accordingly, this Court do not find any grounds to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.506/2024 in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrae of First Class at Ongole, Prakasam District, and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.