- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5827 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT NONDA SURYADEEVARA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O KOTESHWARA RAO R/AT NO.814, 9TH MAIN 4TH B CROSS HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560043 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BINDU U, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT SUMATHI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS W/O ASHOK R/AT NO 263/L, 6TH C MAIN ROAD RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560040 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K B K SWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 IN CRL.RP.NO.178/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.25674/2016 BY THE LEARNED XIII Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION THAT THE SIGNATURE IN EX D-10 (a) TO (m) AND THE SIGNATURE OF THE RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN HER AFFIDAVIT / VAKALATNAM AND HER DEPOSITIONS MAY BE REFERRED TO THE SIGNATURE EXPERT AT TRUTH LAB'S MANIPAL CENTRE, DICKENSON ROAD N-101(a), NORTH BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, (BESIDE BANDHAN BANK, BENGALURU) COMPARE THE SIGNATURES AND GIVE REPORT TO COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is a sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash order dated 11.04.2022 in Crl.R.P.No.178/2020 on the file of LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and also order dated 07.02.2020 in C.C.No.25674/2016 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru rejecting application filed by the petitioner to send the disputed and admitted documents to Truth lab, Manipal Center, Bengaluru for comparison of disputed signature of accused with her admitted signature. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, the accused has contended that the application filed by her under Section 245 Cr.PC r/w Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act ought to have been allowed. Accused want to compare the admitted signatures of complainant with her disputed signatures at Exs.D1(a) to D.10(m). 3.1 In the complaint, complainant has claimed that she has paid 76 lakhs to the accused and towards repayment of the same, accused has issued cheque. On presentation, it was dishounored as account closed. Complainant gave evidence as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 8(b). During her cross-examination accused confronted her 9 sheets documents. Complainant has admitted some of them, but denied her signature therein. 3.2. Accused has taken up specific defence that she has pledge her gold and diamond jewels with complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 worth more than Rs.65 lakhs, for which petitioner has also paid interested. Accused has written the details and they are signed by the complainant, which came to be marked as Ex.D10 and signatures as EX.D10(a) to (m). Since complainant disputed her signatures at Ex.D10(a) to (m), accused filed application under Section 245 Cr.P.C r/w 45 of Indian Evidence Act, to refer the admitted and disputed documents to hand writing expert. However, the trial Court as well as Sessions Court have rejected the same. In order to prove her defence, the opinion of the expert is necessary. No prejudice would be caused to the complainant if these documents are examined by the hand writing expert and hence the petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Kalyani Baskar (Mrs) Vs. M.S.Sampoornam (Mrs) (Kalyani Baskar)1 1 (2007) 2 SCC 258 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 (ii) G.Someshwar Rao Vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and Anr.(G.Someshwar Rao)2 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant would submits that it is not in dispute that accused borrowed hand loan of Rs.76 lakhs and towards repayment of the same issued the cheque which came to be dishonoured as account closed. Therefore, after issuing legal notice and on the failure of accused to repay the loan complaint is filed. Appreciating the defence put forth and evidence placed on record, the trial Court as well as Sessions Court have rightly rejected the application filed by the accused and pray to reject the this petition also. 6. In support of arguments, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the decision in the case of Common cause and others Vs. Union of India and others (Common cause)3. 7. Heard arguments and perused the record. 2 (2009) 14 SCC 677 3 (2017) 11 SCC 731 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 8. Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, contending that for her legal necessity, accused borrowed hand loan in a total sum of ₹76 lakhs in separate installments. Complainant has also stated that she had gold and diamond jewels and she used to pledge them with the Desarla bankers and paid the amount to the accused. Sometimes accused used to accompany her to the banker to get the money immediately and in fact, the banker has also noticed the said fact. Accused had agreed to pay interest payable to the banker. Though sometime, she paid few installments, later she stopped. Therefore, on the insistence of the complainant, accused issued a cheque for ₹76 lakhs towards repayment of the debt to the complainant. However, on presentation, the said cheque came to be dishonoured as 'Account closed'. Therefore, after issuing legal notice and getting untenable and evasive reply, she has filed the complaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 9. On the other hand, accused admit having borrowed hand loan from the complainant in a total sum of ₹76 lakhs in several installments. However, she claims that while advancing the hand loan, complainant used to deduct interest in advance and therefore the total amount received by her is only ₹54 lakhs. The accused has also taken a specific defence that she used to borrow hand loan at the rate of interest of 3% without any security and at the rate of interest at 2% with the security of her gold and diamond jewels. Whenever the complainant advanced the hand loan and she has borrowed the same, they used to note the same in notebook and they have signed the said entries. 10. In the reply notice, the accused has specifically made averments to that effect. She has also contended that she was regularly paying interest. After certain period, she demanded the accused to return her gold jewels so that she would sell them and repay the entire balance. However, complainant refused to do so. On the other hand, she forced the accused to issue the cheque in question. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 Accused has also alleged that when complainant started coming with the group of people and gave threat to her, she has given complaint against her. 11. In the light of specific defence taken by the accused, the complainant is cross-examined and confronted with the writings made in the notebook and suggested that they bear her signature. The accused has also cross- examined the complainant and asked whether she is having any documents to show that she has pledged the gold ornaments. Complainant has stated that she is not having the said documents, but they are with the pawn broker. When questioned whether she is having any documents to show that she was the owner of the gold ornaments in question, the complainant has replied that she is not having any such documents, but the ornaments were given to her by her mother. In fact, a suggestion is also made by the accused to the complainant that accused is having receipts for having purchased the said ornaments. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 12. Since the complainant denied the said suggestion, during the course of her evidence, accused has got them marked as Ex.D10 and the signatures therein as Ex.D10(a) to (m). In order to prove that the signatures in Ex.D10(a) to (m) is that of the complainant, accused want these documents to be sent to Truth Lab for forensic examination. Accordingly, she filed application under Section 245 Cr.P.C r/w Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act. 13. Considering the objections filed by the complainant, the trial Court rejected the same. Even the Sessions Court dismissed the Crl.RP.No.178/2020 filed by the accused and thereby confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. During the course of their orders, the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have held that since the accused admitted that the cheque in question is drawn on her account and it bear her signature and since she is also admitting the transaction between her and complainant, there is no need to send these documents for Experts opinion. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 14. In support of the impugned order, the learned counsel representing the complainant would submit that rightly both Courts have rejected the application filed by the accused and sought for dismissal of this petition also. 15. Aggrieved by the said orders, the accused has come up with this petition. 16. The fact that accused borrowed a total sum of ₹76 lakhs from the complainant is not in dispute, although the accused claim that out of ₹76 lakhs, the accused has paid only a sum of ₹54 lakhs as she used to deduct interest out of the principal sum itself. In the reply notice itself, the accused has contended that she used to borrow loan at the rate of interest of 2% and 3%. She has specifically claimed that so far as loan taken at 2% interest, she used to give her gold ornaments by way of security and she is having receipts for having purchased the said ornaments. She has also paid interest on several occasions. Whenever she borrowed hand loan, given the gold ornaments and paid - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 interest, entry was made in the notebook and both of them have signed the said entries. In respect of loan taken at 3% interest, she was not giving anything as security. 17. It is also not in dispute that the cheque in question is drawn on the account of the accused and it bears her signature. However, the accused has claimed that the cheque was not given by her at the time when the loan was borrowed, but later when the relationship between her and accused became strained. On the pressure exerted by the complainant, she had to issued the said cheque. 18. In fact, accused has extensively cross- examined the complainant on all these aspects. The complainant has not admitted the suggestions that for borrowing loan at the rate of interest at 2%, accused used to pledge her gold and diamond ornaments and entries made and signatures of complainant and accused are forthcoming in Ex.D10. Since complainant is disputing her - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 signature in Ex.D10, in order to prove her defence, the accused is left with no other alternative, but to send these documents for examination by the handwriting expert. 19. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have concentrated on the issue that accused is not disputing that the cheque belongs to her and it bears her signature and therefore, there is no necessity of sending the Ex.D10 for examination by the handwriting expert. The Courts are not only concerned with the examination of fact whether complainant has proved her case. It is also the duty of the Court to examine whether the accused has proved her defence. 20. Right from the beginning at the stage of giving reply to the legal notice, the accused has come up with a definite defence that her gold and diamond ornaments are pledged with the complainant and that she has made several payments towards interest and while advancing loan, the complainant has deducted interest in advance and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 therefore she is not liable to pay the amount which is reflected in the cheque. Since the complainant has denied that she has signed entries made in Ex.D10. In order to establish her defence, it is necessary that this document can be examined by the handwriting expert and give opinion as to whether some of these entries are in the handwriting of accused and also it bears her signature. 21. It is argued by the learned counsel for complainant that Ex.D10 is note book of account and they are loose sheets and therefore they cannot be relied upon. It is not the case of the accused that she has maintained Ex.D10 during the course of her business. On the other hand, it is a specific case that the acknowledgement for having advanced loan, received the amount, payment of interest and also handing over gold and diamond ornaments belonging to the accused to the custody of complainant are noted in the notebook. Therefore, the accused cannot be prevented from getting the same - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 examined by the handwriting expert on the ground that they are not bounded account books. 22. Both the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have missed the core issue based on which the accused want these documents to be examined by the handwriting expert. Merely because accused admit that the cheque in question is drawn on her account and it bears her signature, she cannot be prevented from establishing her defence for which she is relying upon Ex.D10. When the complainant has totally refused that Ex.D10 bears her signatures, the accused is left with no other alternative, but to get them examined by the handwriting expert. 23. Ultimately, if the accused get a favourable report from the expert and in order to prove the same, she examine the expert, the complainant would get opportunity to cross-examine him. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to the case on hand. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 24. For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court are liable to be set aside and consequently the petition is allowed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed. (ii) The order dated 07.02.2020 in CC No.25674/2016 on the file of 13th ACCMM Bengaluru rejecting application filed by accused under Section 245 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and order dated 11.04.2022 in Crl.R.P.No.178/2020 on the file of 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, rejecting the revision petition filed by the accused are set aside. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37286 CRL.P No. 5827 of 2022 (iii) Consequently, application filed by accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is allowed. (iv) The trial Court is directed to send Exs.D10(a) to D.10(m), Vakalath and deposition of complainant to Truth Lab, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, N- 101(a), North block 1st Floor (Beside Bandhan Bank) Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560042 for comparison of her admitted signatures in the Vakalath and deposition with the disputed signatures at Ex.D10 (a) to (m). (v) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e- mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE ASN / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33