ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated 23.05.2024 made in Dis. No. 736 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XII Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 5 in FIR No. 909 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that along with one Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni, he was partner of M/s. Matrix Homes and Infratech Ventures LLP and despite holding 60% share in the said firm, the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni had not invested any capital in the company and borrowed funds for the purpose of entering into an agreement with M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited for property development of the land admeasuring 9680 square yards, Yalamanchili, in survey No. 68/P, Serilingampally, Madhapur, in which his mother has invested Rs.5 crores. It was stated that they discovered undisclosed legal disputes related to the said property and the petitioner and the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni assured the respondent No. 2 that the said disputes are minor and collected Rs.90,00,000/- for the purpose of resolution of dispute. They even assured that if the disputes are not resolved, M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited would refund the amount taken by them along with interest. However, the mother of respondent No. 2 passed away on 17.08.2020 and transferred her 60% shares in M/s. Matrix Homes Infrasturcture Limited to him and the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni did not return the money as agreed upon. 3. After about one year of pursuing the matter, the respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the Directors of M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited in Madhapur Police Station and subsequently, he resigned from M/s. Matrix Homes and Infratech Ventures-Limited Liability Partnership [for short ‘LLP’] and despite his resignation, the said Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni issued resolutions in the year 2023 claiming ownership of recovered funds from M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited and when the respondent No. 2 was in USA, the accused colluded with Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni issued resolutions in the year 2023 claiming ownership of recovered funds from M/s. White Lotus Structures Private Limited and when the respondent No. 2 was in USA, the accused colluded with Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni to create forged document authorizing Mr. Vijay Parvathaneni to settle issues with accused in C.C. No. 492 of 2023 which was compromised before the Lok Adalat, without the knowledge of respondent No. 2. 4. In connection to the said complaint, the trial Court issued notice to the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. vide Dis. No. 736 of 2024 stating that the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station has submitted a requisition to call for the original documents that were available with the petitioner so as to enable the transmission of the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’) for comparison of disputed signatures of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in FIR No. 909 of 2023. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri T.K. Sreedhar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S. Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Smt K. Jayasree, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 agreed for compromise before the Lok Adalat and thereafter, gave a notarized document to establish that the signatures before the Lok Adalat are correct and the same would belong to them. He contended that once the respondent No. 2 has resigned from LLP there cannot be any document settling the claims between the one partner and the respondent No. 2, and that the documents as sought for were never in possession of petitioner. He lamented that so far the petitioner has not received notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. but has surprisingly received notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for comparison of disputed signatures which is hit by Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. as the petitioner was not arrested earlier. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukh Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 3548 and reiterated that the documents sought for are not in possession of petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that the petitioner being accused No. 5 in FIR, the Police cannot serve notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on him. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that the petitioner being accused No. 5 in FIR, the Police cannot serve notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on him. He asserted that respondent No. 2 has no power to direct the petitioner to produce the incriminating material in his possession under Section 91 Cr.P.C. as such, prayed the Court to set aside the impugned notice issued to petitioner vide Dis. No. 736 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the Office of Public Prosecutor filed memo on behalf of State, stating that an order was passed by the XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, against respondent No. 2/de facto complainant, as well as, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. as such, this petition has to be considered as the petition preferred against order passed under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. He asserted that the Investigating Officer had filed an application before the trial Court stating that the sample signatures and handwritings of petitioner/accused No. 5 are required to be obtained for completion of investigation of the case and as such, the petitioner/accused No. 5 may be directed to appear before the trial Court for the purpose of giving his sample signatures and handwritings. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 , State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra, (1980) 2 SCC 343 , Joginder Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260 , State of Kerala vs. B. Six Holiday Resorts Private Limited, (2010) 5 SCC 186 , Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 and Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition as the same lacks merits. 10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of the petitioner is with regard to issuance of notice dated 23.05.2024 bearing Dis. 10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of the petitioner is with regard to issuance of notice dated 23.05.2024 bearing Dis. No. 736 of 2024 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court, on requisition submitted by the Inspector of Police, whereunder, the trial Court directed the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant to produce the documents available with him with regard to the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, so as to enable the FSL to compare the disputed signatures, and also directed the accused to give specimen signatures. 11. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would reveal that the petitioner/accused No. 5, along with other accused Nos.3, 6 to 8 in FIR No. 909 of 2023 filed Crl. Pet. No. 11920 of 2023 before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them and this Court vide order dated 05.03.2024 directed the petitioners therein to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14.03.2024 between 11:00 a.m., and 05:00 p.m., and the Investigating Officer in turn was directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by following the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 scrupulously. Further, this Court also directed the petitioners therein to co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and by producing relevant documents/materials. 12. In view of the above order, it becomes quite apt to note the definition of word ‘investigation’. As defined in Section 4(l) of Cr.P.C. 1898 and Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the word “investigation” includes all the proceedings under the code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. Therefore, it can be said that there is no force in this contention as it is needless to observe that order dated 05.03.2024 passed by this Court in Crl. Pet. Therefore, it can be said that there is no force in this contention as it is needless to observe that order dated 05.03.2024 passed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 11920 of 2023 is binding on petitioner herein, whereunder, he was directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing requisite information to conclude the investigation, and in spite of issuance of this order by this Court, the petitioner refused to produce the documents and give specimen signatures and handwriting and same amounts to causing hindrance to the process of investigation. 13. With regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice dated 23.05.2024 bearing DIS. No. 736 of 2024 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is hit by Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. the said Sections are extracted below: “91. Summons to produce document or other thing: (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed: (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed: (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. 311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting - If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting: Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is imperative to note that notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is already issued to the petitioner and as such, he is not arrested. A cursor reading of the aforesaid provisions would clearly reveal that there is a bar under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. which enables the Magistrate to order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the same is done for the purpose of investigation, or proceedings under the Code, it becomes expedient to direct the person, including an accused, to give specimen signature or handwriting, as such, the trial Court issued notice to the petitioner on a requisition made by the Police for the purpose of facilitating investigation. Further, in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Agarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 while dealing with grant of anticipatory bail, it was observed in paragraph No. 92.7 that “an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail.” In view of the same, issuance of 41-A Cr.P.C. notice does not limit the powers of investigating agency. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that by following the rules and directives issued in the cases of Joginder Kumar (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra) would reveal that the process of arrest in cases of criminal offences is necessarily fraught with legal requirements. If Section 311-A is interpreted to require an arrest, it will not only make it more difficult for the judiciary to accomplish the objectives of the Section but will also open doors to unnecessary arrests by the Police. The Court in the landmark case of Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra) made an imperative observation in this regard that “the specimen handwriting and the impressions of the fingers, palm, or foot of the accused person will only implicate him if the identification of the two sets can be proven through comparison with other handwritings or impressions. These handwritings or impressions by themselves neither tend nor serve to implicate the accused”, the question that has to be considered is whether it should be really ‘necessary’ for the police to ‘arrest’ a person for the purposes of this clause when it is conspicuous that the ultimate aim of the Section can be achieved without mandating this requirement too. 16. Further, this Court in the case of Bagathi Vijaya Lakshmi vs. Hanumanthu Venkata Sathya, Crl. 16. Further, this Court in the case of Bagathi Vijaya Lakshmi vs. Hanumanthu Venkata Sathya, Crl. R.C. No. 1082 of 2013 held that if the accused is arrested solely for the purpose of obtaining the specimen signatures even when they themselves are cooperating to furnish the same, it would lead to “the procedural code shall sub-serve the ultimate end of the justice.” On similar lines, the Calcutta High Court in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal and Another, MANU/WB/1640/2022 while bringing in the inevitable angle of anticipatory bail, made a critical observation that “no accused who has been granted anticipatory bail would cooperate with the inquiry and allow the investigating agency to come to its natural conclusion if the requirements of Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. are given such an interpretation.” 17. The word “arrest” has been used in relation to the provisions of Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. to benefit the investigating agency rather than the accused so that the learned Magistrate can issue an order requiring an accused who is in custody to provide the specimen signature or handwriting without violating the rights of accused under either Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Cr.P.C. In addition, in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra) it was observed that giving of specimen signatures and handwritings to the Police will not amount to testimonial compulsion which is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and there is no constitutional bar for the Police to obtain specimen signatures and handwritings from the accused. 18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that there are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 20. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.