- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47751 CRL.P No. 14424 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.14424 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI RAJESH SHETTY S/O SHEENAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARADHYA, NEAR ADHIMAYE TEMPLE ROAD, JEPPINAMOGERU-575 007 MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. HUSSAINABBA S/O LATE AHMED BAVA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAZIYA MANZIL NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, KARNAD-574 154 MULKI, D.K. DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU IN CRL.R.P.326/2022 DATED 11.08.2025 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. JMFC, IX COURT, MANGALURU IN CC.NO.802/2018 DATED 27.10.2022 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S. 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47751 CRL.P No. 14424 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Crl.RP.No.326/2022 dated 11.08.2025 and the order passed by the learned JMFC IX Court, Mangaluru in C.C.No.802/2018 dated 27.10.2022. 2. By the aforesaid orders, the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 293 (2) of Cr.P.C has been rejected. 3. The respondent herein initiated a proceeding against the petitioner alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47751 CRL.P No. 14424 of 2025 4. The complaint was filed in the year 2018. The proceedings are pending in C.C.No.802/2018 before the Court of the learned JMFC IX Court, Mangaluru. 5. The application is filed to refer the cheque- Ex.P1 to expert opinion to verify the correction found in the said cheque and to compare the same with Ex.D1 i.e., the agreement alleged to have been executed by the accused and a person by name Rajesh Jain. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said lease agreement at Ex.D1 refers to three cheques and the cheque number which is the subject matter in the present case is also mentioned which is dated 10.01.2015, for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. He therefore contended that the said cheque has been misused by the complainant by correcting the date and inserting Rs.43,00,000/-. 7. The petitioner had though disputed that the check in question is not issued to the complainant and that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47751 CRL.P No. 14424 of 2025 there is correction made in the cheque etc., the said contention was not taken till the application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in the year 2022 i.e., at the fag end of the proceedings before the Trial Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that during the cross-examination of PW1, since he denied the suggestion put to him, he was constrained to file the said application. 8. The learned Magistrate while rejecting the application has observed that at the stage of recording of 313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused, the accused has filed the said application and as per the endorsement, the Ex.P1 was returned for ‘Funds Insufficient’. It is observed that it is not mandatory for the drawer to fill up the entire instrument by himself if the accused has not disputed his signature found in the cheque in question and it is not a sufficient ground to send Ex.P1 to compare with Ex.D1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47751 CRL.P No. 14424 of 2025 9. Learned Sessions Judge while confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate has observed that the Court can ascertain the evidence during judgment and give findings. If the defence of the accused is proved, the Court can take the same and give findings regarding material alteration of the cheque and decide the matter in accordance with law. 10. This Court finds no error in the orders passed by the Courts below. 11. Petition is dismissed. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. I.A.No.1/25 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49