- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12939 CRL.P No. 2037 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2037 OF 2026 BETWEEN: PARASHURAM @ BABU S/O. ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.13, KUMBARA BEEDI ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN- 562110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAMMED ALI S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT BIDARAHALLI VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU- 560 049 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATIONS U/S 311 AND 91 OF CR.P.C DTD 30.01.2026 IN CC.NO.2063/2025 ARISED Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12939 CRL.P No. 2037 of 2026 OUT OF PCR.NO.120/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – accused is before this Court seeking the following relief: (i) Quash the impugned order dismissing Applications under Sections 311 Cr.P.C. and 91 Cr.P.C. dated 30.01.2026 in C.C.No.2063/2025 [arising out of PCR No.120/2015] on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli (ii) Direct the Hon’ble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in C.C.No.2063/2025 [arising out of PCR 120/2015]; • To recall the order dtd: 23.08.2025 and permit the Petitioner / Accused to lead further evidence by sending the admitted and disputed signatures of the Petitioner / Accused to FSL. • To call for the original documents and signatures of the Petitioner / Accused pertaining to the year 2013 from the Manager, SBI-Bank, Puttappanagudi Account No.64065057398, Branch Code : 40032. (iii) Pass such other Order / s or direction / s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12939 CRL.P No. 2037 of 2026 2. Heard Sri Abubacker Shafi, learned counsel for petitioner. Notice to the respondent is not required to be issued in the matter. 3. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent, the complainant. The transaction between the complainant and the petitioner leads the complainant to invoke Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short). The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter. 4. Two applications are filed by the petitioner - accused under Sections 311 and 91 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the order dated 23.08.2025, seeking reference of the signatures to the forensic expert and to permit him to lead further evidence respectively, in C.C.No.2063/2015. The petitioner - accused contends that the signature found on the cheque is not his and also seeks time to comply with the order dated 05.11.2024. The concerned Court by the impugned order rejects the applications and orders that the matter be posted for arguments. Therefore, the applications filed under Sections 311 and 91 of the Cr.P.C. must have been allowed, is the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12939 CRL.P No. 2037 of 2026 contention of the learned counsel for petitioner. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows: “COMMON ORDER ON APPLICATION U/s. 311 OF Cr.P.C & 91 OF Cr.P.C. The Learned Counsel for accused has filed these applications U/sec.311 of Cr.P.C seeking permission to recall order dtd.23.08.2025 and permit him to lead further evidence and to send admitted and disputed signatures of accused to FSL Application filed U/s.91 of Cr.P.C seeking an order to call for original documents and signatures of accused pertains to 2013 from SBI Bank Puttappanagudi Beedhi Branch. It has submitted that accused had filed application seeking examination of signature on cheque by FSL and the same was allowed. Further officials of FSL admitted signatures of accused pertains to 2013, but accused could not trace out documents pertains to 2013. Hence this Hon'ble Court call for records from the concerned Bank. In the application U/sec.311 of Cr.P.C it has submitted that accused could not produce admitted signatures. Hence this Court was pleased to close the stage and posted the matter for arguments. Hence, pray to allow the application. The learned counsel for complainant filed objections to the said applications, It is stated that sufficient opportunity was granted to accused, These applications have been filed after laps of considerable time only to drag on the proceedings. If the applications are allowed it will cause hardship to the complainant. Hence, prays to dismiss these applications. Heard both side, perused the material on record. The complainant has filed complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. It is the defence of the accused that signature found on the cheque does not belongs to accused. Hence he had filed applications for examination of signature on the cheque by the FSL. Inspite of sufficient opportunities - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12939 CRL.P No. 2037 of 2026 accused did not comply the order of this Court. This Court directed the accused on 14.07.2025 to furnish 5-6 admitted signatures as required by FSL. It is pertinent to note that this Court ordered to send the Ex.P-1 for examination by handwriting expert on 22.11.2022. Inspite of sufficient opportunities accused did not take proper steps to comply the order. It shows that accused intentionally did not comply the order of this Court. Burden is on the accused to furnish 5-6 admitted signatures pertaining to 2013. Now the accused is seeking direction from this Court to secure admitted signatures. Hence there are no grounds to allow these applications. Therefore the following: ORDER The applications filed by the accused U/s. 311 OF Cr.P.C & 91 OF CR.P.C are hereby dismissed. No order has to cost. For arguments. Call on 07.02.2026” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court in the afore-quoted order has given a finding that the proceedings is of the year 2015, as a private complaint is registered in the year 2015 and for the last 11 years, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act is being dragged even though sufficient opportunities are afforded the accused has not availed the same and not furnished the specimen signatures to send them to forensic expert opinion. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12939 CRL.P No. 2037 of 2026 5. The issue now is, the concerned Court had directed the petitioner - accused to furnish specimen signatures for it to be sent to the forensic examination for comparison with the disputed signatures as the contention was that the signatures found on the cheque is not his and despite granting of sufficient time, the petitioner has failed to furnish the specimen signatures for the forensic examination. Since the transaction is of the year 2013, the signatures that were directed to be produced was of the year 2013. Even that is not complied with by the accused. Therefore, the concerned Court has rejected the applications on the score that it is only a ruse to drag the proceedings. The concerned Court has rendered valid and cogent reasons for rejection of the applications. 6. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 171