- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1055 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI K. K. KRISHNA S/O. LATE KADAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 43, K.H.B. III STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU-570 023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O SRI MAHADEV C/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT D.NO.365 GURURU NEW LAYOUT NEAR RAMABAI NAGARA MYSURU-570 008 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 MADE ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTIONS 45, 67 AND 73 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IN C.C.NO.482/2016 BY THE J.M.F.C.(IV COURT), MYSURU AND REJECT THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 45, 67 AND 73 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the JMFC (IV Court), Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.482/2016 by which an application filed by the respondent under Section 45, 67 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was allowed. 2. The petitioner/complainant initiated proceedings to prosecute the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as 'N.I. Act'). The petitioner claimed that the respondent had executed a loan agreement on 16.04.2015 and had also handed over a cheque towards discharge of the loan amount. He claimed that the said cheque, when presented, was returned unpaid with an endorsement "funds insufficient". The petitioner thereafter, caused a notice of demand, which was replied by the respondent denying the transaction and the liability to pay the amount demanded. Following this, the petitioner initiated prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 3. The Trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner, registered C.C.No.482/2016 and issued process. The respondent entered appearance, following which, the Trial Court recorded the evidence of the petitioner and a witness. After closure of the evidence of the petitioner and the matter was listed for recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent denied the evidence appearing against her, following which, the case was listed for defence evidence. At that stage, the respondent filed an application under Sections 45, 67 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the signature found on the cheque as well as the loan agreement (Ex.P7) to a handwriting expert in order to compare it with the admitted signature at Ex.P1(a) and P7(a) and ascertain whether the unmarked signature found on Ex.P1 was the signature of the respondent. 4. The said application was opposed by the petitioner and the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order, allowed it and directed both the documents to be referred to handwriting expert in order to ascertain the genuinity of the unmarked signature of the respondent found on the cheque at Ex.P1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not deny the signature on Ex.P7 as well as the signature on Ex.P1 when the notice of demand was issued. He contends that even during the course of cross- examination of the petitioner, the respondent did not deny her signature on Ex.P7 and Ex.P1. He therefore, contends that the application filed by the respondent is only to prolong the case and protract the proceedings. He thus, contends that there is no need for referring the documents for handwriting expert and the order passed by the Trial Court is without considering the above. 7. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner in the course of his cross-examination, specifically admitted that "
..1 ರರುವ ಅಂಗಳನು ರುವದೆ ಆೋ ಾವೇ ಸ !ಾ"ರುವಲ ಎಂದೆ ಸ%." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 (ii) He further submitted that the petitioner/PW.1 deposed as follows:- "
..7 ರರುವ ಆೋ ಸ
..7ಎ ಆೋಯದಲ.
..7 ಾಖ)ೆಯನು *ಾನು ಸೃ,- !ಾ"ೊಂಡು /ಾಜರುಪ"2ರು3ೆ4ೕ*ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸುಳ56." (iii) He further submitted that the petitioner had no objection for referring both the documents for handwriting expert and invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of petitioner/PW1, where he deposed as follows:- "
..1 ಮತು4 7ನು 9ೆರಳಚು; vÀdÕjUÉ ಕಳ5 ಸಲು ಯವೇ ತಕಾರು ಇಲ." (iv) He therefore, contends that the respondent has disputed the unmarked signature on Ex.P1 as well as her signature on Ex.P7 and therefore, the only way to ascertain the said fact is comparison of the both signatures along with the admitted signature at Ex.P1(a). He thus, contends that the Trial Court was justified in directing both the signatures to be referred to the handwriting expert and the impugned order is therefore, just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. A perusal of the cheque, which is marked as Ex.P1 shows that there were some alterations in the cheque. The petitioner admitted that there were alterations in the cheque, but claimed that the respondent has countersigned such alterations. The countersignature is not marked. However, the signature of the respondent, which is admitted is marked as Ex.P1(a). The respondent denied her signature on Ex.P7, which was marked as Ex.P7(a). The petitioner admitted that the respondent did not countersign the alteration on Ex.P1. Therefore, this gives an impression that the petitioner was also of the opinion that the respondent had not signed the alteration in Ex.P1. If that be so, the unmarked signature found on Ex.P1, purportedly signed by the respondent, had to be ascertained for genuinity. This being a crucial fact, the Trial Court was right in directing Ex.P1 to be referred to handwriting expert. Similarly, the respondent had denied her signature on Ex.P7, which was marked as Ex.P7(a) and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in referring both the documents for verification of the signature - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13385 CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019 found on Ex.P7 i.e., Ex.P7(a) and the unmarked signature on Ex.P1, for comparison with the admitted signature at Ex.P1(a) and there is no error which warrants interference by this Court. 10. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34