IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH 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”

5^TH MILE, KELLUR POST, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA – 670 645.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJITHA T.O., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI BABU JOSEPH Digitally AGED 54 YEARS, signed by NAGAVENI S/O LATE JOSEPH Location: PROP: AMALA DISTRIBUTERS, HIGH COURT OF MAHILA SAMAJA ROAD, VIRAJPET TOWN, KARNATAKA 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

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 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 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 ce