- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:221 CRL.P No. 104599 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104599 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: UDYA S/O. SHRIPAL UPADYA AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE /ADVOCATE, R/O. SANKONATTI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD THROUGH PSI, ATHANI POLICE STATION DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. KOTRESH S/O. BASAPPA TOTAGAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. SHRISHAILESHWAR TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMPUR ROAD, CBS GANCH CIRCLE, GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 3. SHOBHA BASAPPA TOTAGAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. SHRISHAILESHWAR TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMPUR ROAD, CBS GANCH CIRCLE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.14 14:07:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:221 CRL.P No. 104599 of 2025 GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 4. BASAPPA SHIVAPPA TOTAGAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. SHRISHAILESHWAR TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMPUR ROAD, GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. ATHANI BELAGAVI ON I.A.NO. 1, DATED 02.03.2023 FILED BY THE ACCUSED U/SC. 91 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C. NO.1742/2020 AND ETC.,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. M. C. Hukkeri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:221 CRL.P No. 104599 of 2025 2. The petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 with the following prayer: “Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be allowed this criminal petition by calling Trial Court records and may please, A. to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, Belagavi on I.A.No.1 dated 02.03.2023 filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1742/2020 and, B. To pass any other orders, directions as deems fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4. A complaint came to be filed by the petitioner herein against respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein alleging that, the commission of the following offences: 1 For short, ‘BNSS’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:221 CRL.P No. 104599 of 2025 “Under Sections 420, 468, 469, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ” 5. An application was filed by the accused under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 to secure the documents which were said to have been furnished by the petitioner to the Bar Council for the purpose of comparison of the signatures on the vehicle transfer documents with the signatures on the application. 6. The said application on contest came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course adopted by the learned Trial Magistrate is incorrect, inasmuch as admitted signatures available on vakalath and other necessary documents could have been sent for the purpose of comparison, and sought for allowing of the petition. 2 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:221 CRL.P No. 104599 of 2025 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would contend that signatures may vary over a period of time. It is further contended that, at an undisputed point of time, the petitioner’s signature available on the application filed before the Bar Council is identical to the signatures found on the documents which are now in dispute. Hence, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge, it is evident that the documents sought to be secured contain the signature of the present petitioner at an undisputed point of time, for the purpose of comparison of that signature with the disputed signature on the documents. 10. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by summoning the said documents and referring them to a Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:221 CRL.P No. 104599 of 2025 11. Hence, this Court does not find any good grounds whatsoever to admit the petition for further consideration. 12. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 57