- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8119 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BYYUP MADHUSUDHAN REDDY S/O GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.15, 507/6, AM PUTTUR, PANGAL, SRI KALAHASTHI, THIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-571644 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.REVATHY ADINATHA NARDE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ADINATHA NARDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.L34, 2ND A MAIN ROAD, 6TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560102 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA.,ADVOCATE A/W SMT.K.M.ARCHANA., AMICUS CURIAE.,) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT DATED 12.07.2023 IN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 CRL.RP.NO.210/2023 BEFORE THE LXXXI ADL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED MADE U/S 45 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION 243 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.8013/2022 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED XLII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPs/MLAs, TRIABLE BY LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.8013/2022 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru. The respondent is the complainant. On the ground that the petitioner owed a legally dischargeable debt to the respondent and to repay the same, he issued a cheque in favour of the respondent and the same has been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 C.C.No.8013/2022 has been filed. In the course of the evidence, the cheque which was dishonoured has been marked as Ex.P1 along with a promissory note as Ex.P3 and the consideration receipt as Ex.P4. It is seen that the date of issuance of the cheque has been altered from 15.03.2017 to 22.09.2017 and a signature is put below the said altered date. 2. The petitioner admits his signature on the cheque, which is marked as Ex.P1(a) but denies his signature put on the cheque below the altered date, which is marked as Ex.P1(b). The petitioner also denies his signature on the promissory note and the consideration receipt. 3. The petitioner had filed an application before trial Court for referring the admitted signatures and the disputed signature for examination by an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said application was taken up by the trial Court upon - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 conclusion of recording of evidence in the case and the impugned order rejecting the application has been passed by assailing the following reasons: ”Moreover, the opinion of the expert is not final, but, the court is also empowered to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures on record coupled with the other oral and documentary evidence available on record as per Indian Evidence Act. Further, referring the signature to the Expert is not the only mode of proving or disproving the signature. As such, I am of the opinion that the present application seeking to refer the signature of the accused found in Ex.P1 cheque which is marked as Ex.P1(b) and the signature found in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 which is marked as Ex.P3(a) and Ex.P4(a) to the handwriting expert is not called for." 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed in C.C.No.8013/2022, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.210/2023, which also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 5. The case of the petitioner is that the issuance of the cheque is admitted by the petitioner. However, the date of the cheque has been altered, which was not done by the petitioner and the respondent/complainant has concocted the signature of the petitioner below the altered date. It is also contended that there is no legally dischargeable debt. It is also contended that the signatures of the petitioner on the promissory note and the consideration receipt are also concocted and forged. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the factual issue in the case can be put at rest by ascertaining whether the signature at Ex.P1(b) on the cheque and on the promissory note and the consideration receipt is that of the petitioner or not. If it is held to be that of the petitioner, it is submitted that the complaint will have to be allowed against the petitioner and if it is held not to be that of the petitioner, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Under the said circumstances, it is contended that the trial Court ought to have referred the matter to an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 expert, as the Court may not be technically competent to decide the veracity of the disputed signature and the trial Court erred in not doing so. 6. Per contra, the respondent/complainant contends that the signatures at Ex.P1(b) and also on the promissory note, as well as the consideration receipt belong to the petitioner and it is further contended that in every case, the Court is not required to refer the matter to an expert and the expert evidence rendered under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not binding on the Magistrate. It is also contended that if the Court is of the opinion that it itself can compare the signature and come to the conclusion whether the same is that of the petitioner or not, then in that event there is no requirement for the same to be referred to a handwriting expert. It is submitted that the trial Court is of the opinion that it itself can decide as to the veracity of the signatures in dispute and under the circumstances, the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 order has been passed. For the said reason, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 7. The question that arises for consideration is: "Whether the trial Court ought to have sent the disputed signatures for an expert opinion, as sought for by the petitioner in the instant case?" 8. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: "45. Opinion 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 2[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3[or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2[or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts." 9. In umpteen number of cases it has been held that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such a report is not binding upon the Court. If eyewitnesses' evidence and other prosecution evidence are trustworthy, have credence and are consistent with the version given by the eyewitnesses, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to discard the expert opinion. It is best left to the discretion of the trial Court to determine whether under the circumstances it requires the opinion of an expert or not to decide the dispute on hand. 10. However, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the onus of proving that the signature at Ex.P1(b) and on the promissory note and the consideration receipt is that of the petitioner/accused is on the respondent/complainant. In the instant case, the petitioner/accused is ready and willing to have the signatures examined by an expert, but whereas it is the complainant/respondent herein who has shied away from the said reference to an expert. If there is any doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the disputed signature - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35835 CRL.P No. 8119 of 2023 at Ex.P1(b) or on the promissory note and the consideration receipt is at variance from the admitted signature of the petitioner/accused, then in that event, the same shall enure to the benefit of the accused. 11. Subject to the aforementioned observations, the petition stands disposed of. 12. As the respondent did not appear even though notice was served, this Court appointed Amicus Curiae, who has assisted the Court. Thereafter, the respondent has put in an appearance duly represented by his counsel. Under the said circumstances, the respondent shall pay a consideration of Rs.5,000/- to Smt.K.M.Archana, the Amicus Curiae. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9