- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6753 CRL.P No. 355 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.355 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT RATHNA W/O DEVENDRAGIRI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O BABALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVTHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GNANESHA N I.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S NRS AGRO PRODUCTS BY ITS PROPRITOR SRIDHARAGIRI, S/O RAMAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BABALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVTHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.4311/2022 ON APPLICATION U/S 41 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6753 CRL.P No. 355 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the accused in C.C.No.4311/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court, which rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, directing the disputed signature of the petitioner on the subject cheque marked as Ex.P1 for comparison with the admitted signature of the petitioner from the Court records and submit a opinion / report in this regard. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Respondent having been served with notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings instituted by the respondent – complainant against the petitioner – accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner specifically denied her signature on the alleged cheque dated 20.04.2022, which was marked as Ex.P1 in the evidence of respondent – complainant (PW1). Subsequently, petitioner filed the instant application invoking Section 41 of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6753 CRL.P No. 355 of 2025 Indian Evidence Act, to seek disputed signature of the petitioner on Ex.P1 for comparison with the admitted signature of the petitioner from the Court to send the records to the handwriting expert / forensic laboratory and to submit a report in this regard. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application mainly on the ground that the application has been filed only to protract the proceedings. 4. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the material on record, which clearly indicates that the petitioner had specifically denied her alleged signature on Ex.P1 and had contended that the same was not signed by her. Under these circumstances, in order to elucidate the issues in controversy between the parties, it was essential/ necessary to refer the disputed signature of the petitioner on Ex.P1 / cheque for comparison by handwriting expert / Forensic Laboratory with her admitted signatures from the Court records and to obtain a report in this regard, which was essential for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. Under these circumstances, in order to enable the Trial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6753 CRL.P No. 355 of 2025 Court to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy between the parties and deal with the specific contention of the petitioner that the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque was not that of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the application dated 13.11.2024 filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhadravathi, is hereby set aside. (iii) Application dated 13.11.2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, is hereby allowed. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to refer the disputed signature of the petitioner on the subject cheque Ex.P1 for comparison with her admitted signature in the Court records to the concerned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6753 CRL.P No. 355 of 2025 Handwriting expert / Forensic laboratory and to obtain a report in this regard and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. (v) 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 SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120