- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7729 CRL.P No. 101888 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101888 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRIDHAR K. NAIK @ GURKA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HESCOM LINE MAN, R/O. NAGAPPA NAIK ROAD, HURALISAL, BHATKAL, DIST. BHATKAL-581320. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. MAHAGANAPATI FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, BHATKAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BHATKAL, BHATKAL-581320. …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, COURT, BHATKAL IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 45 AND 73 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IN C.C.NO.1257/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, COURT, BHATKAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7729 CRL.P No. 101888 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri Sajid Ahmed Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 by the accused seeking to quash the order dated 09.04.2025 passed on application filed under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act in C.C.No.1257/2024 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bhatkal. 3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under: Respondent – complainant has filed private complaint before the Trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act” for short) against the petitioner – accused alleging that the petitioner- accused had borrowed loan of Rs.3,60,000/- from the complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7729 CRL.P No. 101888 of 2025 with a promise to return the same within three months with interest at the rate of 16% and thereby issued a Demand Promissory Note in favour of the complainant. Later, the accused failed to pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner issued a Cheque in favour of complainant drawn on State Bank of India, Bhatkal Branch bearing No.000532 dated 25.12.2023 for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/-. On being presentation of the said Cheque same was returned with a shara as “payment stopped by drawer”. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused. Inspite of service of legal notice on the accused, he failed to pay the amount due under the cheque. Therefore, the complainant filed private complaint before the Court against the petitioner – accused. 4. After institution of the complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance, issued process against the accused and recorded plea for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and also proceed with the trial. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7729 CRL.P No. 101888 of 2025 5. When the matter was posted for final argument, the accused filed an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to refer Ex.P.11 – application for loan and Ex.P.12 – Demand Promissory Note to the expert for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the signature found on the said documents with the admitted signature of the accused. However, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the accused. 6. Perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the accused sought to refer Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12, which are loan application and Demand Promissory Note respectively to the expert for comparison with admitted signature. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyze Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: “45. Opinions of experts.– When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7729 CRL.P No. 101888 of 2025 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.– In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This Section applies also, with any necessary modification, to finger impressions.” 7. In the instant case, the fact in issue is, “whether the accused has issued cheque in favour of the complainant or not?” and “whether the signature found in Ex.P.3 – cheque pertains to the accused or somebody else?”. Whereas, in the instant case, the accused has not seeking any relief for referring Ex.P.3 – Cheque to the expert for comparison of the signature. Ex.P.11 – loan application and Ex.P.12 – Demand Promissory Note are only corroborative piece of evidence to the alleged loan transaction. The material available on record would show that the accused has admitted the issuance of Cheque and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7729 CRL.P No. 101888 of 2025 signature found in Ex.P.3. Therefore, the question of referring Exs.P.11 and 12 to the expert for comparison under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act would not arise as Exs.P.11 and 12 are not crucial documents in the case. Therefore there is no merit in the criminal petition. Accordingly, the criminal petition is hereby dismissed. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court, forthwith. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14