- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3170 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GOLD ENTERPRISES AND PROPERTY DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 79/1, 2ND CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP. BY MOHAMMED SHABBIR 2. MR. MOHAMMED SHABBIR SON OF HAJI ISMAIL SAIT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. MRS. NIKHITHA SHABBIR WIFE OF MR. MOHAMMED SHABBIR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NOS. 2 AND 3 AT NO.79/1, 2ND CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. P. SATISH PAI SON OF LATE NARASIMHA PAI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026 'ASHWINI', 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 080. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN C.C.NO.29923/2015 PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.J.M ON I.A. FILED UNDER SEC.243(2) OF CR.PC R/W 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.29923/2015, by which their application under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was rejected. 2. The respondent initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026 'the NI Act'). After his sworn statement was recorded, the trial Court took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners entered appearance and obtained bail. Thereafter, the trial in the case began and the respondent was examined as PW-1. He was extensively cross-examined. Later, the petitioner No.2 was examined as DW-1. At the time of his cross-examination, he filed an application under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for a forensic examination of the signatures found on the cheque along with his admitted signature. The said application was rejected by the trial Court in terms of the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) The accused/petitioners in the reply notice did not specifically deny the signature on the cheque. (ii) In the cross-examination of PW-1 in O.S.No.3098/2013 filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque, not even a suggestion was made that the signature on the cheque was not of the petitioners. (iii) The cheque return memo dated 04.03.2003 issued by the banker did not disclose that the trial signature deffered but it was returned on the ground that the account was blocked. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026 (iv) That there was no suggestion by the petitioners to PW-1 in the course of cross-examination that the signature found on the cheque was not of the accused No.2 and that the petitioner No.2 did not even deny his signature when he was examined in chief. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cheque in question was a blank cheque that was handed over by the petitioners to one Mr.Avinash Amarlal and was not handed over to the respondent for repayment of any debt. Therefore, the cheque in question had to be sent for forensic examination. He also contends that the petitioners have specifically claimed that Mr.Avinash Amarlal was in possession of a cheque book of the petitioners and that whenever he financed the petitioners, he would take signature of the petitioner No.2. He therefore contends that the blank unsigned cheques that were lying with Mr.Avinash Amarlal were misused by the respondent. He therefore submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be interfered with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026 and an order is to be passed allowing the application filed by the petitioners. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court indicates that the petitioners did not take a contention in their reply to the demand notice that the signatures found on the cheque were not theirs. It appears that the respondent had filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque and in the said suit also, there was not a suggestion made by the petitioners that the signature found on the cheque was not of the petitioner No.2. Even in the course of cross-examination of PW-1 in the present case, a suggestion was not put to him that the signature found on the cheque was not of the petitioner No.2. Even in the evidence of the petitioner No.2, who was examined as DW-1, he did not even faintly mention that the signatures found on the cheque were not his. On the contrary, he claimed that these cheques were given to Mr.Avinash Amarlal and that the same were misused by the respondent, thereby admitting his signatures. Therefore, the trial Court was right in holding that the petitioners do not dispute the signatures found on the cheque - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026 and therefore, he is not entitled for any orders for a forensic examination of the signatures found on the cheque warranting interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 6. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32