- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4898 WP No. 76 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SOMAYAJALAHALLI VILLAGE, MURUGMALLA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S. K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SANTHOSH B. R., OCC: BUSINESSMAN, S/O RAMAKRISHNAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT CHELUR ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST - 563 125. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 15.12.2025 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4898 WP No. 76 of 2026 PASSED IN CC NO. 46/2022 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI VIDE ANNX-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.46/2022 registered for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard Sri.Shivashankar S.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent-the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads the complainant to the concerned Court to register a complaint - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4898 WP No. 76 of 2026 invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After following the procedure, the concerned Court registers C.C.No.46/2022 and issues summons. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. An application is filed by the petitioner- accused seeking a direction to send the instrument involved in transaction for forensic examination. The said application comes to be rejected on the ground that a bare perusal at the cheque would not indicate any tampering for the concerned Court to send the matter for forensic examination. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows: “Orders on application files U/s 45 & 73 of Indian evidence Act The accused has filed the present application stating that send disputed signature found on the alleged cheque produced by the PW-1 in the case to Forensic Laboratory along with signatures and the signatures found on the documents produced by the complainant with present signatures of the accused for comparison and also direct the Forensic Laboratory to give opinion for having taken the signatures by the complaint in pressure and force by his friends and for comparison for best adjudication of the case fully and effectively and to proceed with the case. Hence prays to allow the application. The application resisted by filing written objection, in that the application filed by the accused is false and further stated that the accused himself has admits his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4898 WP No. 76 of 2026 signature over the cheque and when he himself admitted the signature there is no question of sending the disputed signature to FSL. Further, the case against the complainant in Special CC No. 117-2020 is already disposed and acquitted against him. The present application is filed only to dragon the proceedings. Hence prays to dismissed of application. Heard both side and perused materials placed before the court. This application is filed when case stood for defence evidence. Accused admitted his signature on Ex.P1. When signature is admitted law provides presumption and law also provides opportunity to the holder in due course to make necessary material alteration. It is duty of the accused to establish that material alteration in Ex.P1 were made against to his wishes. Accused contended that complainant has tood his signature by pressure accompanying with his friends and for this complaint has been lodged in cc no 117/2020. but the same is disposed by accquiting the complainant. When the signature over the cheque is admitted by the accused evidence of expert to prove this fact is not necessary and burden is on the accused to establish that cheque taken by force, by misusing the cheque this complaint is foisted. This burden cannot be shifted on expert, even though there is difference in signature and writings in Ex.P1. Accused has to prove that against to his wishes Ex.P1 was filled, hence expert opinion is not necessary for effective adjudication. For above discussion following, ORDER Application filed by accused U/s 243 of Cr.P.C. r/w section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, is dismissed with cost of Rs 1000/-. For defence finally as last chance by 16.12.2025. Sd/- 15/12/2025 Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Chintamani.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4898 WP No. 76 of 2026 4. The concerned Court rejected the application of the petitioner on the score that when the signature over the cheque is admitted by the accused, evidence of expert to prove the fact was not necessary and therefore, the burden was on the accused to establish that the cheque was taken by force and by misusing the cheque, the complaint is registered. 5. I do not find any error apparent to interfere with the order that is passed, as it is in consonance with law. 6. In that light, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HJ/CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:SS