##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6675

CRL.P No. 4535 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4535 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

H S KATHYAYINI,

WIFE OF SAMPATH KUMAR.M,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.711,

7^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD,

VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE,

MYSURU-570017.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BYRE GOWDA N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

B LAKSHMEESH

signed by

SANJEEVINI J

SON OF (LATE) L. BORAIAH,

KARISHETTY

Location: AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

High Court of

Karnataka RESIDING AT NO.2809,

GROUND FLOOR,

2^ND CROSS, 2^ND PHASE,

4^TH STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR,

MYSURU-570 017.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA R. SWAMY., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6675

CRL.P No. 4535 of 2025

HC-KAR

ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.48/2024, REGISTERED BY

THE V JMFC, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, 1881 AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 the

order dated 15.03.2025, passed by the learned V J.M.F.C., at

Mysuru, in C.C.No.48/2024, rejecting the application filed

under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Heard Sri.Byre Gowda N., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Manjunatha R., learned

counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the

complainant. They two have a transaction with regard to

exchange of an instrument for an amount of ₹10,00,000/-.

The cheques presented for its realisation were returned for

want of sufficient funds. The proceedings are instituted by the

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6675

CRL.P No. 4535 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondent/complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the claim of

the petitioner or claim of the respondent or the defence of the

petitioner. The petitioner files an application before the

concerned Court under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to refer

the signature for forensic examination in the light of it being in

variance with the signatures obtained at the time of cross-

examination and also the vakalath so filed. The said application

comes to be rejected by the impugned order, the rejection of

which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject

petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the signature if compared with the

vakalath and the cross-examination would clearly indicate that

it is forged, therefore, the cheques ought to have been sent for

forensic examination.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submits that a bare perusal at the cheque would

not indicate any such tampering. Signatures here and there

would necessarily vary from document to document, that would

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6675

CRL.P No. 4535 of 2025

HC-KAR

not mean that it should be sent for forensic examination.

Moreover, the learned counsel submits that the application is

preferred at the fag end of the proceedings, which the

concerned Court has declined to accept.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What

drives the petitioner is the application filed by the petitioner for

referring the matter for forensic examination under Section 45

of the Evidence Act. The concerned Court rejects the

application by the following order :

"The learned counsel for the accused has filed

this application at the stage of accused side

arguments, praying to send the Ex.P1 and 3 cheques

to hand writing expert opinion to compare the

disputed signatures in Ex.P1 and 3, admitted

signature in vakalathnama and examination chief

affidavit filed b