- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37517 CRL.P No. 12533 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12533 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI GURUPRASAD M AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAMACHANDRA, RESIDING AT 8-133/10, PRARTHANA 4TH BLOCK, BANGERA COMPOUND, KODIKAL, URWASTORE, ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALURU - 575 006 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SUGGI CHITS CO. PVT, LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MAHESH. M S/O DEJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OFFICE C-16, DOOR NO. 3-138/35. 2ND FLOOR EMPORIUM, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEAR COCHIN BAKERY, KANKANADY OLD ROAD, MANGALURU-575002. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO EXAMINE AND A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2025 PASSED BY THE V JMFC AT MANGALURU IN CC NO.173/2022 AND ALLOW APPLICATION DATED 04.03.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37517 CRL.P No. 12533 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused questioning the order of the learned judge passed on an application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act where a request was made to refer the contents of the cheque to an handwriting expert. The said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that this application is filed when the matter was posted for the arguments of the petitioner/accused. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order under challenge. 3. The facts leading to the present case are that the respondent/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. In - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37517 CRL.P No. 12533 of 2025 support of his complaint, the complainant produced the cheque in question and has led his evidence. The petitioner/accused, while not disputing that the signature appearing on Ex.P1 is indeed his, has nevertheless taken the contention that the body of the cheque was not written by him and that the complainant has misused the cheque by filling up the contents. On this premise, the petitioner filed an application seeking to send Ex.P1 for examination by a handwriting expert. 4. This Court has, on several occasions, consistently held that once a cheque is admittedly issued and bears the signature of the drawer, the holder of the cheque is entitled to complete its contents and present it for encashment. The mere fact that the drawer has not filled up the contents by his own hand does not by itself absolve him of liability. Further, in such cases, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into operation, namely that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37517 CRL.P No. 12533 of 2025 recoverable debt. It then becomes the duty of the accused to rebut this presumption by leading cogent rebuttal evidence. 5. In the case on hand, the records reveal that the petitioner/accused, though he entered the witness box, did not subject himself to cross-examination. On the contrary, he remained absent on repeated occasions, resulting in his cross-examination being taken as ‘nil’. This fact is specifically borne out by the objection filed by the complainant. Even thereafter, upon a subsequent application, the accused was granted one more opportunity by way of a recalling order to lead his evidence. However, despite this indulgence, the accused once again failed to appear for cross-examination, thereby squandering the opportunity given. 6. It is only thereafter, at the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, that the petitioner/accused has made a belated attempt by filing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37517 CRL.P No. 12533 of 2025 applications under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the cheque to a handwriting expert. This Court is of the considered opinion that such a move at this belated stage is nothing but a desperate attempt to prolong and protract the proceedings. The overall conduct of the petitioner in contesting the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is found to be grossly unfair and inconsistent with the bona fide defence of an accused. Having failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption by leading evidence, he cannot now be permitted to take recourse to dilatory tactics. 7. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner/accused shall conclude his arguments before the learned Magistrate within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of default, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to hear the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37517 CRL.P No. 12533 of 2025 matter and pass judgment on merits in accordance with law, without granting any further indulgence. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77