Karnataka High Court
Kumara vs Venugopala D on 11 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52501
CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9080 OF 2021
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARA
S/O REVANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YERS
R/AT HALEBEEDU VILLAGE
BILIKERE TALUK, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 603.
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
KALKADE VILLAGE
HANAGODU VILLAGE
HUNSUR TQ-571 603
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A., ADVOCATE)
GEETHA P G
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. VENUGOPALA D.
S/O LATE DASACHAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KESTURUKOPPAL VILLAGE
CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI
K.R.NAGAR TALUK
MYSURU DSIT-571 602.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52501
CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
27.10.2021, THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION UNDER 45 OF
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1988 IN C.C.NO.548/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
K.R.NAGAR, AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATION UNDER 45 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1988
IN C.C.NO.548/2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed the following application before the trial Court:
"APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT The above named accused begs to submit as hereunder:-
1. It is submitted that the complainant filed the false complaint against the accused for punish the accused under the provision of section 138 of negotiable act.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52501 CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021 HC-KAR
2. It is submitted that the accused is not given any cheque bearing cheque No.132432 Oriental Bank Commerce Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore worth of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of complainant on dated 20-06-2014 and also not signed on the of cheque from the accused.
3. It is submitted that the above defence may be prove by the accused with the help the opinion of experts in respect of handwriting export, and also the accused may prove his defence to send the cheque, vakalath and also other documents produced by the accused before this Hon'ble court. Hence this application.
WHEREFORE the respondent humbly prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to allow this application in the interest of justice."
2. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 by assigning the following reasons:
"ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT The learned counsel for the accused has filed this application u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking permission to send the Ex.P.1 cheque to the handwriting expert in order to prove his case.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:52501 CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021 HC-KAR
2. This application is objected by the complainant by filing objection.
3. Heard and perused.
4. The following point that would arise for my consideration is:
1. Whether the application filed by the accused u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1988 deserves to be allowed?
2. What order?
5. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following REASONS POINT No.1:-
6. The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
7. Now both the parties have completed their side of evidence. At the stage of arguments the accused has filed this application seeking referring the cheque/Ex.P.1 to the handwriting Expert to ascertaining the signatures and the contents of the cheque to the Handwriting Expert on the ground that, there is a difference found in the writing and the signature on Ex.P.1, which can be seen with bare eyes and the writings and the signatures on the Ex.P.1 is created by the complainant in order to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:52501 CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021 HC-KAR get wrongful gain and cheat the accused. The complainant himself has filled the cheque by himself and created the signatures of the accused on this document, hence filed this application.
8. On the other hand, the complainant objected this application on the ground that the application filed by the accused is false one and the bank authorities have issued an endorsement that insufficient founds in the account of the accused to honour the cheque Ex.P.1.
before issuing this endorsement the bank authorities definitely compare the signature found in Ex.P.1 with the documents maintained in the bank and the bank authorities have not stated that the signature of the accused found in the cheque differs and hence sought for dismissal of the application. It is further stated that in the bare eyes the Court observes the signature of the accused on the cheque, which is clear that, it belongs to the accused. The other admitted signatures of the accused found in the Court documents i.e., in the examination of accused u/s 313, bail bonds, examination of the accused under the plea, the Court observes that, they all belongs to the accused and the same signatures found on Ex.P.1. Therefore, sought for the dismissal of the application.
9. On perusal of the entire pleadings of both the parties, no where the defence is taken up by the accused that the signature found on Ex.P.1 is not belongs to him. Even in his evidence also no where stated that the signature found on Ex.P.1 is not belongs to him. Without -6- NC: 2025:KHC:52501 CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021 HC-KAR any basis the accused again seeking to referring the signatures to handwriting expert, all of a sudden by filing this application, it appears that it is completely an after thought of the accused after completion of his evidence.
10. No doubt, the bank endorsement at Ex.P.2 reveals that the bank authorities have stated when it was presented, there was an insufficient funds in the account of the accused to honour this cheque/Ex.P.1. At that time the bank authorities would have definitely observed and compared the signature of drawer of the cheque and they have not issued the endorsement that there is a difference in the signature found in Ex.P.1. The bank authorities compare the signatures of drawer of the cheques with their specimen signatures maintained in their bank, when the cheque is presented for encashment. There is no such endorsement of the bank authorities in this regard. Their opinion is also relevant while considering the signature of the accused. Therefore, it is rightly stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the bank endorsement can be believed to that extent about the signature found in Ex.P.1 is of the accused.
11. Therefore, the application filed by the accused seeking referring the matter to handwriting expert is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in the Negative.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC:52501 CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021 HC-KAR POINT No.2:-
12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The application filed by the accused u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1988 is dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected & pronounced in the open court on 27th October 2021) Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R.Nagara."
3. As can be seen from the reasoning given by the trial Court, the application has been dismissed on the ground that the contentions stated in the application has not been taken up anywhere in the evidence let in by the parties.
4. When the Court directed the petitioner to show where he has taken the defence; either in the cross-
examination of the complainant or by leading his evidence that the accused/petitioner herein has not issued the cheque or filled up the cheque or signed the cheque, the petitioner was unable to answer the same.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:52501 CRL.P No. 9080 of 2021 HC-KAR
5. The case of the complainant/respondent herein is that the petitioner has not taken up the defence that he has not issued the cheque or signed the cheque as part of evidence.
6. Under the said circumstances, the question of referring the cheque to an expert as prayed for by the accused/petitioner herein does not arise. I do not see any error in the well reasoned order of the trial Court.
For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal petition is hereby dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19