Karnataka High Court
Adrashappa S/O Gangappa Madar vs Hanamantappa S/O Budappa Budappanavar on 14 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805
CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102616 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ADRASHAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HANSI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. C. CHAKALABBI AND ASSOCIATES
AND SRI S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
HANAMANTAPPA
S/O. BUDAPPA BUDAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CHALAWADI ONI KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 030.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND
Dharwad
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2024 IN CC NO.2732/2021
PENDING ON THE FILE OF II JMFC HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, IN RESPECT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED, AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805
CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused praying to set aside the order dated 29.07.2024 passed in C.C. No.2732/2021 by the learned II JMFC, Hubballi, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking sending of cheque to a Handwriting Expert for comparing the disputed signature of the petitioner on the cheque with the admitted signature came to be rejected.
2. The respondent/complainant has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is pending in C.C. No.2732/2021 on the file of the learned JMFC-II Court, Hubballi. In the said case, the respondent/complainant has been examined as PW.1. The petitioner/accused has been examined as DW.1. When the case came to be posted for arguments, the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805 CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024 petitioner/accused has filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying to send the cheque- Ex.P-1 to the Handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature of the petitioner on the cheque with the admitted signature on the Account Opening Form. The said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has disputed the signature on the cheque-Ex.P-1 and taken up a defence that the respondent/complainant, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, has stolen the cheque from his house when he visited the house. He further contends that, he has specifically put a suggestion in the cross-examination of PW.1 that signature on the cheque is not that of the petitioner/accused. He further contended that, even DW.1 in his evidence has stated that signature on the cheque is -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805 CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024 not his signature and it has been stolen by the complainant. As accused has not admitted his signature on the cheque, it is necessary to send the said cheque to the Handwriting Expert to compare with the admitted signature. The Account Opening Form of the petitioner/accused has been submitted by the Bank and signature on it can be compared with the signature on the cheque-Ex.P1 by the Expert. Without considering these aspects, the learned Magistrate has erred in passing the impugned order and observed that the Court has got powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the admitted signature and the disputed signature. With this, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that the cheque has not been returned on the ground that, 'signature differs' but it is returned as, 'to present new CTS cheque.' The admitted and disputed signatures are before the Court, the Court can compare the admitted and the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805 CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024 disputed signature under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Considering the said aspect, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.
7. The petitioner/accused has disputed his signature on the cheque-Ex.P-1. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is suggested that, the signature on the cheque- Ex.P-1 is not that of the petitioner/accused. DW.1/accused has stated in his evidence that signature on the cheque-Ex.P-1 is not his signature and it has been stolen by the complainant when he visited his house and the complainant is his relative. When the signature is disputed, the Court cannot take the task of comparing the admitted signature with the disputed signature. Without considering the same, the learned Magistrate has erred in -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805 CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024 passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/accused.
8. In t he result, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed in C.C. No.2732/2021 by the learned II JMFC, Hubballi, is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act stands allowed. The learned Magistrate is directed to send Ex.P-1/cheque and the Account Opening Form of the petitioner/accused to a Handwriting Expert for comparing the disputed signature on Ex.P-1-Cheque with the admitted signature on the Account Opening Form of the petitioner dated 30.04.2024.
Since the criminal case is of the year 2021, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously after receipt of the expert's opinion. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4805 CRL.P No. 102616 of 2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only), initially, as charges of the Handwriting expert on or before 24.03.2025.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv CT-ASC