IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 156 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. MR. KISHORE SALIAN S/O MR. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KORGA HITHLU, ALAPE PADIL POST, MANGALURU D.K.DISTRICT - 575 007.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. N. P. SHENOY S/O G.G.SHENOY MAJOR IN AGE D igitally signed by R/AT "PREETHI COMPLEX"

GEETHA P G ALAKE, MANGALURU Location:

D.K.DISTRICT - 575 005.

HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (SRI. N.P.SHENOY, RESPONDENT - SERVED)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.5686/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, IV COURT, MANGALURU, D.K., REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND THEREBY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.5686/2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, IV Court, Mangaluru, D.K rejecting the Application filed by the Complainant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and thereby allow the said application as prayed for and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

2. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent has remained absent.

3. The petitioner is the complainant before the trial Court and he has preferred a private complaint before the trial Court alleging that the respondent is guilty of committing an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The respondent has denied his signatures on the cheques. Though there is a presumption in favour of drawee of the cheque, he is still required to prove his case and depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, when the signature is denied by the accused, it may be necessary for the complainant to make an application for referring the same to be examined by an expert.

4. In the instant case, as the respondent/accused denied his signatures on the cheques, the petitioner/complainant has made an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to have the disputed signatures on the cheques to be examined by an expert. The trial court has rejected the same by passing the following order:

"ORDERS ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

The advocate for the complainant has filed this application to refer the disputed signatures at Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and other admitted signature of the accused to handwriting expert for obtaining an opinion whether the said signatures are of the same person or not. It is stated that the complainant has produced and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 contending that the accused has executed the said document. The accused has denied the execution of the document and to bring out the truth it is necessary to refer the disputed signature found in Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 to handwriting expert and to obtain the opinion of the expert and thereby prays to allow the application.

The learned advocate for the accused has filed objection and stated that, the complainant has filed the above application with intention to drag the proceedings and harass the accused. Therefore the application itself not maintainable and he has prayed for reject the application.

Heard the learned counsels.

The complainant has filed above application at the stage of argument on main. On perusal of the materials available on record it is reveals that the Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were returned with an endorsement of Drawers signature differs. The