- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:510 WP No. 27300 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 27300 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI ABDULLA K.U., S/O USMAN HAJI AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT “COMBY HOUSE” 5TH MILE, KELLUR POST, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA – 670 645. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJITHA T.O., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI BABU JOSEPH AGED 54 YEARS, S/O LATE JOSEPH PROP: AMALA DISTRIBUTERS, MAHILA SAMAJA ROAD, VIRAJPET TOWN, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 218. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A) WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE – A ORDER DATED Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:510 WP No. 27300 of 2025 23.05.2024 WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION FILED IN CC IN NO.174/2019, UNDER SECTION 45 AND 73 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION 243(2) OF CR. P. C. FOR FORENSIC LABORATORY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; B) AND TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO SEND THE CHEQUES TO FORENSIC LABORATORY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. 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 an order dated 23.05.2024 rejecting an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for reference of the instrument to the forensic analysis. 2. Heard Smt.Rajitha T.O, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is the accused, respondent is the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction goes wrong. Cheques issued in-furtherance of the transaction leads - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:510 WP No. 27300 of 2025 the complainant to the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter. At the fag end of the trial, the petitioner-accused files an application seeking reference of the cheque to a forensic expert on the score that it was tampered. The concerned Court by the following order has rejected the said application. The said order reads as follows: “7. Point No. 1: The accused has filed the present application under Section 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act seeking to refer the cheques bearing No.858571 and 858572 at ExP1 and ExP2 to the hand writing expert to find out the age of the ink of the date and month written on the cheques. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed the above private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The proceedings under Section 138 of NI act is summary in nature and the trail adopted to the said proceedings is summons trial and not warrant trial. Further a perusal of record and cross-examination of the PW-1 it reveals that the accused has not denied the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques belonged to his account and he even has not denied the signature found on the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques. Once cheques and signature found in the said cheques is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 and 118 of the NI Act raises in favour of the complainant and it shall be presumed that the accused has issued the said cheque for the discharge in whole or in part of his any debt or other liability. In the present case, the accused has not denied the signature or the contents of the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques. However, he denied only the month written on the said cheques contending that the complainant had altered the month written on the said cheques by altering the original dates from 30-01-2018 to 30-09-2018. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had presented the said cheques for collection through his banker on 27-12-2018 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:510 WP No. 27300 of 2025 and the accused bank had returned the said cheques on the grounds "funds insufficient” and not on the ground of material alteration in the said cheques. If really the complainant had altered the month written on the ExP1 and ExP2 certainly the accused bank would have issued the endorsement stating such alteration. However the bank had issued the endorsement stating funds insufficient. Further since accused has not denied the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques and signature found on the said Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques and taken only contention that the complainant had altered the month written on the said cheques, no purpose would be served by sending Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to the hand-writing expert for scientific investigation. 8. It is settled law and in catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts were held that in respect of the proceedings instituted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I, Act, it is only mandate that cheque in question should be belonged to the account of the accused and signature found in the said cheque ought to be in the hand writing of the accused. Further, it is not even mandate that contents of the said cheque should be in the hand writing of the drawer/accused. The holder in due course can fill the signed cheque and present it for collection. Thus, once the cheque and signature is admitted or it is proved that cheque belonged to the account of the accused and signature found in the said cheque belonged to the accused, the statutory presumption as per section 139 of N.I. Act comes into play in favour of complainant. Hence, the said presumption which raises in favour of the complainant cannot be rebutted by mere sending the said cheques at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to the hand writing expert to find out the age of the ink of the date and month written on the said cheque and his report. Thus, the report of the handwriting expert would be immaterial in determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over to the complainant. Hence, no purpose would be served by allowing the application for referring the Ex.P1 cheque to the hand writing expert. Further, at this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:510 WP No. 27300 of 2025 that "The respondent admits that he signed and handed over a cheque to the appellant. According to the respondent a signed blank cheque was handed over by him. The question which arises in the appeal is whether the High Court was correct in permitting the respondent to engage a hand writing expert to determine whether the details that were filled in the cheque were in the hand of the respondent. For the reasons set out below, we have allowed this appeal against the order of the High Court for the reason that Section 139 of the NI Act raises a presumption that a drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability. The evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over. Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert. For such a determination, the fact that the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person would be immaterial. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability". The said decision is also aptly applicable to the present application on hand. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has not made out any grounds to allow the present application filed under section 45 and 73 of Evidence Act R/W Section 243(2) of CrPC. Hence point No. 1 is answered in the Negative. 9. Point No. 2: For the reasons stated supra and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The application filed by the accused under section 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act R/W Section 243(2) of CrPC is hereby rejected with cost of Rs.500/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:510 WP No. 27300 of 2025 For cross of DW-1 by 04/06/24.” 4. A perusal at the order would brood no perversity for this Court to entertain a petition against the said order and refer the matter for forensic examination. A perusal at the cheque as observed by the concerned Court does not indicate any tampering. The application is filed as a ruse to drag the proceedings, is apparent. 5. In the light of the order not warranting any interference, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VM/CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 189