Karnataka High Court
D Suresh Babu vs Dinesha M R on 9 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24949
CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13507 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. D. SURESH BABU
S/O. LATE DORAI SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.182, A, J.C. NAGAR
6TH A MAIN, NEAR RV SCHOOL
KURUBARAHALLI
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 086.
2. D. MOHANA SUNDARAM
S/O. DORAISWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT 103, 6TH 'A' MAIN
J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 086
NAME AND ADDRESS MENTIONED IN PCR IS INCORRECT.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)
CHANDANA
BM
Location: AND:
High Court of
Karnataka
DINESHA M.R.
S/O. RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.28, 20TH 'R' CROSS
DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
KAVERI LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 024.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24949
CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19-11-2024 IN C.C.NO.50198 OF 2021 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF XXXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY, VIDE ANNEXURE-M, AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CR.P.C VIDE
ANNEXURE-K.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the accused in C.C.No. 50198/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 whereby an application filed by the petitioners under Section 293 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act was rejected by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioners/accused -3- NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioners/accused filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, to refer the disputed signatures and disputed thumb impression for comparison with the admitted signature and admitted thumb impression of the petitioners. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 30.01.2024 by holding as under:
"30.1.2024 C.C.No.50198/21ORDER ON APPLICATION U/SEC. 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT The Complainant has filed this application u/Sec.293 of Cr.P.C. r/w 45 of Indian Evidence Act, prating referring the Ex.P. 1 and 2 to scientific expert for his opinion about comparing the signature and thumb impression on Ex.P.1 of Accused No.1 with his evidence affidavit, plea and specimen thumb impression of Accused No.1 and also give the opinion about the comparing signatures of the Accused No.2 on Ex.P.2 by comparing the same with evidence affidavit and plea of the Accused No.2
2. The Accused opposed the application by filing of written objections contending that, the application is not maintainable. The entire allegation of the Complainant is that, the Accused No.2 has issued the cheque by and on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Accused, who had availed loan from the Complainant by executing Ex.P.1. It is contended by the Accused that Ex.P.1 is not executed by either the Complainant or the Accused No.2. It is further contended that, the signature with the banker of the Accused No.2 is not before the court to compare the signature and the same is also not forthcoming in any other document produced by the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR Complainant. It is further contended that, in the cross-
examination the Accused denied execution of Ex.PI. Accused No.2 has not signed the Ex.P.1 and even the Complainant is not a signatory of Ex.P.1. It is further contended the application only filed to delay the proceedings and protract the case only to harass the elised for al all these reasons, preved for rejection of the
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
4. The Complainant filed this case against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. It is the case of the Complainant that. Accused No.1 and 2 have availed handloan of Rs. 50 lakhs from Complainant and one M.R. Sunil, out of which, Complainant has paid Rs.25 lakhs to the Accused No. 1 and 2 and remaining Rs.25 lakhs has been paid by one Mr. Sunil. For this transaction Accused No.1 on his behalf and on behalf of Accused. No.2 has entered into agreement of loan on 3.3.2014 as per Ex.P.1 with Mr.Sunil, who is none other than nephew, wherein the Accused No.1 has categorically admitted the above said loan transaction by putting his respective signature and thumb Impression on Ex.P.1. It is further submitted that, with respect of said transaction, Accused No.2 on his behalf and on behalf of Accused No.1 has signed two cheques and issued in favour of Complainant as per Ex.P.2, which is the subject matter of this case and in another cheque is in C.C.No.310/2021 which is pending before SCCH-21. On perusal of cross-examination of DWI, who is Accused No.2 has denied his signature on Ex.P.2 cheque and Accused No.1 examined himself as DW2 and he denied his signature and thumb impression on Ex.P.1. To prove the execution of Ex.P.1 by the Accused No.1 and to prove the issuance of cheque and signature of the Accused No.2 on the cheque, the Complainant intending to refer the both documents for scientific analysis comparing the same with admitted signature. Ex.P.1 loan agreement was executed on 3.3.2014 and cheque was issued on 21.01.2020. Plea is recorded on 15.12.2021 and vakalathnama of Accused No.1 and 2 were filed on 5.3.2021. Therefore, no any long duration was gaped between both signatures. Therefore it is necessary to send both documents for scientific analysis to prove the signature on Ex.P.1 and 2 by the Accused No. 1 and 2. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER The application filed by the Accused u/Sec.293 of Cr.P.C. r/w 45 of Indian Evidence Act, is hereby allowed.
Office is directed to send the original Ex.P.1 and 2 along with plea of Accused No.1 and 2 along with vakalathnama of both Accused No.1 and 2 to the scientific expert's opinion.
The Complainant is directed to furnish name and address of the scientific expert if, PF paid.
For report, call on 4.3.2024".
4. In pursuance of the same, the Court Commissioner i.e., M/s Truth Labs which was appointed as a handwriting/thumb impression expert who gave his opinion as hereunder:
"File No: TLB/QD/062/2024 Report/Opinion of Truth Labs Date: 23/08/2024 REFERENCE The Hon'ble 34 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru -560001, has forwarded certain documents concerned in C.C. 50198/2021 for examination vide court letter To. No. 57/2024 dated 18/04/2024 and further correspondence letter To. No.96/2024 dated 20/06/2024 regarding the authorship of the signatures.
The case was assigned by the Chairman, Truth Labs to Shri. Shankarappa Mural, Director, Documents Division, Truth Labs, Bengaluru for examination and report/opinion with assistance of Ms. Apoorva C.G, Senior Scientific Officer, Truth Labs, Bengaluru.
The details of documents received and marked for examination are given below.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED A. QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS:
1. Questioned signatures on Original Agreement of Loan (ExP1) in e-Stamp paper bearing No. IN-
KA32804415654947M dated 03/03/2014 is said to be between Sunil. M.R. S/o Ramkrishna, residing at No.5, Santhrupathi Nilaya, 4th Cross, Muniyamma Badvane, Dasarahalli Main Road, Bangalore North, Bengaluru - 560 024 and D.Suresh Babu S/o Late Dorai residing at No. 205, Srinivas, 17th Main Road, 3d Cross, Freedom Fighters Colony, Laggere, Bangalore- 560 058 of Rs.50,00,000/- in one sheet marked as Q1 and Q2.
2. Questioned signature on Original Cheque (ExP2) bearing No. 348282 dated 21/01/2020 concerned to Account No. 20037912926 of State Bank of India, Basaveswaranagar Branch, Bangalore for Rs. 25,00000/- in the name of Dinesha. M.R marked as Q3.
B. STANDARD DOCUMENTS:
Admitted signatures said to be of D. Suresh Babu on: -
1. Vakalath dated 14/12/2021 marked as S1.
2. Plea dated 15/12/2021 marked as S2.
3. Specimen signatures of D. Suresh Babu obtained in open court dated Nil marked as S3 to S5 File No: TLB/QD/62/2024 Admitted signatures said to be of Dinesha, M.R on:-
1. Vakalath dated 14/12/2021 marked as S6.
2. Plea dated 15/12/2021 marked as S7.
EXPERT'S PROFILES Expert Name:Shri. SHANKARAPPA MURAL Educational Qualification:B.Sc. (Chemistry) Professional Training:
Diploma in Document examination from the National Institute of criminology and Forensic Science, New Delhi. Received -7- NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR training in the Forensic examination of printed documents and allied matters at the Indian Security printing press Nasik, Bank note printing press Devas, Security Paper Mill Hoshangabad. Received training in the operation of various equipment used in the examination of Forensic documents from Government examiner of Questioned documents (G.E.Q.D), M.H.A, Govt. of India and so also in various Forensic Science Laboratories. Examined more than 1000 cases of criminal and civil nature.
Professional Experience:
Over 28 years of experience as Forensic Document Examiner at State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. Attended several conferences organized by the B. P. R and. D. at several places like at Hyderabad F. S. L. regarding Indian security products, World Document conference held at Bengaluru etc. Expert Testimony:
Given Expert evidence in several courts in Karnataka state and assisted senior Experts outside the Karnataka while doing training at the N. 1. C. F. S., Delhi and given evidence at several courts like departmental enquiries and court martials etc. Expert Name: Ms. APOORVA C. G Educational Qualification: Master of Science in Forensic Science, Garden City University, Bengaluru Forensic Aptitude and Caliber Test (FACT) 2022 qualified.
Professional Training:
Internship and Training at TSFSL, Hyderabad in Questioned Documents and Fingerprints, Forensic Biology and Serology, DNA Forensics, Forensic Psychology, Narcotics and Toxicology, Crime Scene Investigation. Training at Truth Labs, Hyderabad in Questioned Document & Fingerprint Examination, 10-Digit Fingerprinting, Investigation of Insurance Cases.
File No: TLB/QD/062/2024 Participated in various Workshops & Conferences in the fields of Questioned Documents, Fingerprinting, Forensic Biology, Forensic Psychology, etc. Professional Experience:
1.8+ years of experience in examination of Questioned Documents (QD) & Fingerprints (FP) documents, Crime Scene -8- NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR Processing, Insurance Cases Investigations, Assisting Senior Experts in report preparation of more than 350 cases at Truth Labs Expert Summons:
Assisted senior experts in various courts of Karnataka for Questioned Documents and Fingerprint cases for Truth Labs.
Accreditation:
Working in ISO 9001:2015 Certified Lab.
PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION To examine the questioned signatures marked as Q1 to Q3 vis- à-vis standard signatures marked as $1 to $7 and to express opinion regarding their common authorship or otherwise.
NATURE OF EXAMINATION The referred documents have been carefully and thoroughly examined in Truth Labs with the help of scientific aids like magnifiers, Stereo microscope coupled with computer imaging system at different lighting conditions like infrared, ultra- violet, transmitted, direct incident light, oblique light etc. OBSERVATIONS The standard signatures marked as S1 to S7 are freely written and show natural variations in the formation of various characters. As such these standard signatures are appropriate for comparison purpose with the questioned signatures marked as Q1 to Q3.
OPINION-1 The person who wrote the standard signatures marked as S1 to SS also wrote the questioned signatures marked as QI and Q2.
REASONS FOR OPINION-I I have carefully, and thoroughly examined the documents of this case in Truth Labs with the help of scientific instruments such as magnifiers, Stereo microscope coupled with computer imaging system with different lighting conditions like infrared, ultra-violet, transmitted, direct incident -9- NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR File No: TLB/QD/062/2024 light, oblique light, etc.
1. On inter-se examination of the standard signatures marked as S1 to S5 reveals free and firm movements in their executions. There are no such qualities of imitations or disguise observed in them. The standard signatures are showing consistency in their writing habits and possess natural variations among the various individual characters. The standard signatures marked as S1 to S5 are found suitable and sufficient for the purpose of examination of the questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2
2. On examination of the questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 on one hand and the standard signatures marked as S1 to S5 on the other, various similarities are observed in their minute and inconspicuous details of individual writing habits of character such as manner of execution of character 'D' in single operation with its commencement of short stroke in downward movement and in turn execution of following part of character as well as its nature of curvature, inward nature of its terminal finish with intention of disguise, alignment of character in respect to the ideal baseline of writers writing habits, etc., as observed in the questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 are similarly observed in the standard signatures marked as St to SS within the natural variations of writers writing habits.
3. Other similarities are also observed in the execution of characters "Suresh" in middle part and in terminal portion of signature read as "Babu" in separate operation, so also execution of character with intentional disguise like formation of characters 'S', 's', 'B', 'b' and terminal character 'u', medium skill of writing habits, overall alignment of signature in respect to the ideal baseline of writers writing habits, etc., as observed in the questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 are similarly observed in the standard signatures marked as S1 to S5 within the natural variations of writers writing habits.
4. Similarities are also observed in the general writing habit features like movement, skill features like speed, spacing, slant, alignment, relative size, skill of writing habits and proportion of characters of signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 and the standard signatures marked the quest as S1 to S5.
File No: TLB/QD/062/2024
5. In short, cumulative consideration of the aforesaid similarities are significant and sufficient in the questioned and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR the standard signatures in both general and individual writing habits which constitutes the basis for my opinion that the questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 and the standard signatures marked as S1 to S5 were written by one and the same person.
OPINION-II The person who wrote the standard signatures marked as S6 and S7 also wrote the questioned signature marked as Q3.
REASONS FOR OPINION-II I have carefully and thoroughly examined the documents of this case in Truth Labs with the help of scientific instruments such as magnifiers, Stereo microscope coupled with computer imaging system with different lighting conditions like infrared, ultra-violet, transmitted, direct incident light, oblique light, etc.
1. On inter-se examination of the standard signatures marked as S6 and S7 reveals free and firm movements in their executions. There are no such qualities of imitations or disguise observed in them. The standard signatures show consistency in their writing habits and possess natural variations among the various individual characters. The standard signatures marked as S6 and S7 are found suitable and sufficient for the purpose of examination of the questioned signature marked as Q3.
2. On examination of the questioned signature marked as Q3 on one hand and the standard signatures marked as S6 and S7 on the other, various similarities are observed in their minute and inconspicuous details of individual writing habits of character such as manner of execution of signature in two operations with the commencement of character 'D' and its peculiar nature with its commencement in short stroke along with ticked movement in downward direction, in turn execution of following simplified portion of characters in the form of curvature and so also resultant of loop at their junctions, medium skill, intentionally disguising the writing habits of writer while exerting questioned signature Q3 is similarly observed in the execution of standard and S7.
File No: TLB/QD/062/2024
3. Other characters observed in terminal portion of signatures with simplified form of executions and so also illegible shape, relative size of terminal character and its shape almost read as "S" with simplified nature, direction of its terminal finish along with the nature of extent, etc., as observed in the execution of questioned signature marked as Q3 with intentional disguise
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR while executing such terminal portion of signature in standard signatures marked as 56 and S7 are similarly observed in the standard signatures marked as S6 and S7 within the natural variations of writers writing habits.
4. Similarities are also observed in the general writing habit features like movement, skill features like speed, spacing, slant, alignment, relative size, skill of writing habits and proportion of characters of the questioned signature marked as Q3 and the standard signatures marked as S6 and $7.
5. In short, cumulative consideration of the aforesaid similarities are significant and sufficient in the questioned and the standard signatures in both general and individual writing habits which constitutes the basis for my opinion that the questioned signature marked as Q3 and the standard signatures marked as S6 and S7 were written by one and the same person."
5. Perusal of the aforesaid report would indicate that the Court Commissioner which is the hand writing/ thumb impression expert has rendered findings only as regards the disputed / admitted signatures and not as regards the disputed/admitted thumb impression as is clear from the said report. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed one more application under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act to compare the disputed thumb impression of the petitioner/accused No.1 with his specimen thumb impression and to submit a report in this regard. The said application having been opposed by the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent/complainant, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the subject matter of the proceedings were only the disputed signatures and not the thumb impression. In this context, it is relevant to state that in the earlier order the Trial Court had directed the hand writing / thumb impression expert to not only render an opinion as regards the disputed signatures, but also as regards the disputed thumb impression which is not forthcoming and conspicuously absent in the report submitted by the M/s. Truth Labs, which was the Court Commissioner.
6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court clearly fell in error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking comparison of the disputed thumb impression with the specimen thumb impression of accused no.1 and to submit a report in this regard in respect of which it is needless to state that the expenses shall be borne by the petitioner.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24949 CRL.P No. 13507 of 2024 HC-KAR In the result, petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 09.11.2024 is hereby set aside.
The application dated 04.11.2024 filed by the petitioner in C.C.No.50198/2021 under Section 293 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is hereby allowed. The Trial Court is directed to send the disputed thumb impression of accused No.1 for comparison with the specimen thumb impression of accused No.1 to the very same Lab i.e., M/s.
Truth Labs and secure the report from M/s. Truth Labs as stated supra and dispose of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63