##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13385

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH 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

Digitally signed

by NEAR RAMABAI NAGARA

MARKONAHALLI

RAMU PRIYA MYSURU-570 008

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

(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:

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13385

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019

HC-KAR

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 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13385

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019

HC-KAR

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 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13385

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2019

HC-KAR

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 fo