- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35574 CRL.P No. 12473 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12473 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. R. NAGARAJ PATEL S/O C. RAJASHEKARAIAH, HRINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.57, 2ND MAIN, 3RD STAGE, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR. BENGALURU-560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.G. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. J. RAVISUNDER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. VENKAT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL A EDUCATION INSTITUTION AFFILIATED TO C.B.S.E, NEW DELHI, HAVING ITS OFFICE A 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. T. BALAKRISHNA. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35574 CRL.P No. 12473 of 2025 2. SRI. T. BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE. CHIKKATHAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, CHAIRMAN AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF M/S. VENKAT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. AND ALSO AT RESIDENCE NO.987, 1ST CROSS, NEAR KADAMBI SCHOOL, 8TH MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTIONS 311 AND 311-A OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT BY THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.6885/2019 (IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT) VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO GIVE HIS VOICE SAMPLE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT BY ENTERING WITNESS BOX. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35574 CRL.P No. 12473 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is by the complainant assailing the order of the learned Magistrate who has rejected the application filed under Section 311 and 311(A) of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner sought direction to record the voice sample of the accused to enable the complainant to compare it with the disputed voice records at Ex.P-16, on which petitioner is placing reliance. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner/complainant instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Upon service of summons, the respondents/accused entered appearance and have contested the proceedings by denying the very existence of the transaction. In support of his case, the petitioner has produced the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35574 CRL.P No. 12473 of 2025 dishonoured cheque and, in addition, sought to rely upon a telephonic conversation allegedly recorded in a pen drive, which has been marked as Ex.P-16. According to the petitioner, the said recording evidences the accused acknowledging the liability of Rs.25,00,000/-. On that basis, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission of the Court to direct the accused to provide his voice sample, so as to corroborate the voice recording stored in Ex.P-16. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully perused the order impugned. 4. At the outset, it is to be noted that once a complaint is instituted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by complying with the statutory requirements contained under Section 138(b), the production of the dishonoured cheque itself raises a presumption under Section 139 of the Act. This - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35574 CRL.P No. 12473 of 2025 presumption operates in favour of the complainant to the effect that the cheque was issued towards discharge of an antecedent debt or liability. In that view of the matter, the insistence of the petitioner to further prove the liability through audio recordings appears to be unnecessary. It seems that the petitioner, being over cautious, has sought to strengthen his case by relying on the recorded telephonic conversation stored in Ex.P-16. 5. However, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application seeking direction to the accused to provide his voice sample. It is a settled position that an accused cannot be compelled to furnish such a sample in these proceedings. 6. Be that as it may, it requires to be emphasised that even if the accused were to deny the transaction in its entirety, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act continues to operate in favour of the complainant. It is for the accused to rebut - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35574 CRL.P No. 12473 of 2025 such presumption by leading cogent evidence during the course of trial. The burden of proof, therefore, shifts to the accused once the cheque and the foundational requirements are established. In this light, the rejection of the application does not in any manner prejudice the case of the petitioner. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no error or illegality in the order impugned warranting interference. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76