- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1674 CRL.P No. 100461 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100461 OF 2021 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI.SHANTAPPA A. NANDREKAR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRI/GANGMAN, R/O. SAVALAG, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST BAGALKOT 587330. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SIDDAPPA SITARAM KOLI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., R/O. TEERTH, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591304. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN C.C.NO.2707/2018, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 AND 142 OF N.I.ACT DATED 11/01/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1674 CRL.P No. 100461 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.K.H.Bagi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. 2. None appears for the respondent, though duly served with the notice of the petition. 3. The accused, who is the petitioner, challenges the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate permitting the memo whereby the evidence of PW-1, already recorded, was directed to be discarded due to factual mistakes and allowing the complainant to place fresh evidence on record by examining the witness afresh. 4. The learned trial Magistrate allowed the said memo on cost of ₹1,000/-. Validity of the said order is called in questioned by the accused, contending that there is no provision under Code of Criminal Procedure to discard the evidence already taken on record and if there is any discrepancy that can only be explained and therefore approach of the trial Magistrate is incorrect and sought for allowing the petition. 5. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1674 CRL.P No. 100461 of 2021 6. Admittedly, the cheque is belonging to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the trial should have commenced with the defence evidence in the absence of any application filed under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. However, the learned trial Magistrate directed the complainant to lead the evidence. 8. In the memo, the complainant stated that, by mistake he had furnished the factual aspects in respect of some other case. 9. Therefore, it was prayed to discard the evidence already taken in record and examine the witness afresh in respect to the present case on hand. 10. The learned trial magistrate allowed the said memo on payment of cost of ₹1,000/- payable by the complainant to the accused. 11. By permitting the complainant to lead fresh evidence, no prejudice has been caused to the accused, inasmuch, as it is he who is required to rebut the presumption available to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1674 CRL.P No. 100461 of 2021 complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by adducing the necessary evidence. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good grounds to set-aside the impugned order. 13. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The petition dismissed. (ii) All available defence is kept open to be urged in the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24