- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6967 OF 2023 BETWEEN: YOGESH. K, S/O. KALAHANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT SHANKADAKOPPALU VILLAGE, SHANKA POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SWAMIGOWDA. S. J., S/O. JAWAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, GUNDURAO LAYOUT, SHANIVARASANTHE POST, SOMVARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 235. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, DVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 PASSED IN C.C.NO.423/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SOMWARPETE AND ALLOW THE SUBJECT APPLICATION AS PRAYED. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 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 calling in question an order dated 24.07.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpete, in C.C.No.423/2021, rejecting an application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 243 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to refer the cheque – Ex.P.1 to the handwriting expert. 2. Heard Sri K. Ravishankar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sanchan Jai Nandan, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent, the complainant. Two had a transaction and the transaction goes wrong. This leads the complainant to initiate proceedings before the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. When the matter was before the concerned Court for recording the evidence under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., an application is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking reference of the disputed signature on the Ex.P.1 – cheque to the handwriting expert for examination. The said application comes to be rejected by the concerned Court. The rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. NAGAPPA VS. Y.R.MURALIDHAR reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633, the application ought to have been merited acceptance and not rejection. Learned counsel submits that the signature on the cheque is disputed and therefore, it should be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent though would refute the submissions, contends that a time limit for conclusion of the trial be fixed as repeated applications are filed, which has caused delay for concluding the proceedings, which is of the year 2021. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They are all a matter of record. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that the issuance of the cheque and the signature on it are admitted and no warrant for referring the cheque for Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. The concerned Court has also recorded a finding that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has already admitted the issuance of cheque and the signature on the cheque. Be that as it may. 8. The Apex Court in the case of T. NAGAPPA VS. Y.R.MURALIDHAR reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633, has held as follows: “8. An accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to defend oneself and for that purpose to adduce evidence is recognised by Parliament in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 “243. Evidence for defence.—(1) * * * (2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross- examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing: Provided that, when the accused has cross- examined or had the opportunity of cross- examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.” 9. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the court. It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. But ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses, etc. If permitted to do so, steps therefor, however, must be taken within a limited time. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial or summon witnesses whose evidence would not be at all relevant. 10. The learned trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The very fact that by reason thereof, only a prima facie right had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable instrument and the same being - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 subject to the conditions as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant was bona fide. 11. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam [(2007) 2 SCC 258 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 577] (in which one of us, L.S. Panta, J., was a member) wherein it was held: (SCC p. 262, para 12) “12. Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. ‘Fair trial’ includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as afore- quoted, in becomes imperative to issue a direction to refer the cheque for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, owing to the peculiar facts of the case at hand. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The order dated 24.07.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpete, in C.C.No.423/2021, stands quashed. c. It is made clear that the concerned Court shall transmit the instrument – Ex.P.1 - cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination by fixing a time limit for receipt of the report and once the report is received, the concerned Court shall conclude - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28947 CRL.P No. 6967 of 2023 the proceedings within an outer limit of three months, from the date of receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 60