- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46677 CRL.P No. 5588 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5588 OF 2024 (482 (Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SADASHIVA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.18 VENKATADHAMA APARTMENT 5TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS NARASIMHA RAJA COLONY BENGALURU 560019 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.65/4, LAKEDEW RESIDENCY, HARALURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T.S. GURUNATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46677 CRL.P No. 5588 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT. MAMATHA DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O SRI R V DEVARAJ RESIDING AT NO.50 'C' STREET, NEAR VILAS HOSPITAL BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2024 ON I.A. IN C.C.NO.419/2020 PASSED IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-9)2), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46677 CRL.P No. 5588 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.419/2020 pending on the file of the Court of Small Causes and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. 2. The respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner herein. The contention of the petitioner is that his cheque book was stolen and that the respondent forged his signature and on the ground of dishonor of cheque has filed a private complaint, which has resulted in C.C.No.419/2020. The petitioner, on the ground that it is essential to verify his signature, has filed an application under Section 91 read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following prayer:- "WHEREFORE, the Accused most respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court to summon the Branch Manager, The Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Laksandra Branch, Wilson Garden, Hosur Road, Bengaluru to produce the Signature verifying card of the Accused and Bank Statement from 1st October 2019 to 30th November 2019, pertaining to the account bearing Accused Savings Bank Account No.1022102010004692 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46677 CRL.P No. 5588 of 2024 and to depose accordingly with regard to the transaction held with vide cheque bearing No.949286, dated 01.10.2019, before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice." 3. The trial Court recording the following reason has rejected the said application. "6. I have gone through the averments mentioned in the application. The documents sought by accused are bank statement and signature verifying card of accused. Admittedly the said bank is a banker of accused. It means the accused is having his account in the aforesaid bank. If accused is having a bank account in the aforesaid bank what prevented him to get certified copy of the same from the bank is not clearly explained. The accused has not at all explained anything, whether he approached the bank to get the copies of aforesaid documents, or not?. It shows that without making any effort to get the aforesaid documents from the Bank, the accused has directly filed the application before the court summoning the branch Manager is not maintainable. Even there is no document is forthcoming the bank has refused to give the document to the accused. Generally, the bank will not refuse to furnish bank statement to the holder of a bank account. Even the bank will not refuse to give other documents to the account holder of the bank. The bank always maintain the secrecy of the account and will not furnish details to third party. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the accused has not made any effort to get the copies of said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46677 CRL.P No. 5588 of 2024 documents by applying to the bank and he has directly filed the application without making any effort to get the documents. Even there is no document is forthcoming the said bank has refused to give the documents to the accused. The accused can very well get the above said documents by applying to the bank as he is holder of bank account. For the sake of argument if bank Manager is summoned to produce the above said documents that will take more time and consume valuable time of the Court. When there is a chance of securing the document through easiest mode by applying to the bank, then question of calling or summons the Branch Manager to produce the document does not arise. Therefore, the application filed by the accused is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the Negative." 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the accused therein has preferred this petition. 5. The case of the petitioner is that to decide the dispute on hand, it is essential to decide as to whether the signature on the cheque belongs to him or not. It is submitted that in this regard the application is made and the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46677 CRL.P No. 5588 of 2024 6. It is seen from the application that the petitioner has requested to examine the Branch Manager to disprove his signature on the cheque. He is not an expert who can do so. Under the said circumstances, I do not see any reason why the well reasoned order of the trial Court has to be interfered. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to make an application to the trial Court to compare the alleged signature on the cheque with the admitted signatures of the petitioner on several other documents by an expert. It is needless to state that the petitioner is always having such liberty. If any such application is filed, it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter. 8. Subject to the aforementioned observations, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27