IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100389 OF 2026 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SRI MOHAMMEDISA DAVOOD NAIKWADI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O.TANGYANKODI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SAI CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, CHIKODI REP. BY ITS RECOVERY OFFICER, SRI SHRIDHAR DAYANAND MUSALE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: RECOVERY OFFICER, R/O. EXAMBA, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201.

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN …RESPONDENT RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High (BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO CALL FOR TE RELEVANT RECORDS IN THE CASE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 PASSED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKODI IN C.C.NO.2351/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SECTION 145 OF NI ACT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO LEAD/ADDUCE HIS FRESH EVIDENT ON OATH ORALLY THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant. The complainant has filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). During the course of the trial, the petitioner/accused has himself examined as RW1 by invoking Section 145(2) of the NI Act and he was also cross examined. Thereafter, subsequently after one year the petitioner/accused has filed application for discarding the earlier evidence tendered through affidavit evidence and intends to lead fresh evidence as oral evidence. This application is rejected by the learned Magistrate. Assailing the same, the accused has preferred this petition praying to set aside the order passed by the trial court.

2. The petitioner/accused has availed the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the NI Act and tendered his evidence by filing affidavit and also the petitioner was already cross examined. When this being the right exercised by the petitioner/accused and his evidence is recorded through affidavit, once again after one year the petitioner/accused has filed an application for discarding the evidence adduced through affidavit and requested to lead evidence through oral evidence.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the accused is not given benefit of leading evidence through affidavit evidence. But sub- section (2) of Section 145 of the NI Act provides an option to the accused to lead evidence through affidavit. Therefore, there is no bar for the accused to lead evidence through affidavit. Now, the petitioner/accused by contending that adducing the evidence through affidavit evidence is not permitted, but he is praying to lead evidence once again, through oral evidence is nothing but misconceived prayer just to avoid wriggle out of the rigorousness of the evidence tendered by him through affidavit evidence. Therefore, this attempt of the accused is rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, when the accused has tendered his evidence through affidavit by availing option as per sub-section (2) of Section 145 of NI Act, that holds good. Therefore, there would not be any abuse of process of Court or there is no such thing made out to effect the process of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition is found to be vexatious and misconceived one. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

Sd/-

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

JUDGE DR /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33