##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3170 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. GOLD ENTERPRISES AND PROPERTY DEVELOPERS

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

NO. 79/1, 2^ND CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

REP. BY MOHAMMED SHABBIR 2. MR. MOHAMMED SHABBIR

SON OF HAJI ISMAIL SAIT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3. MRS. NIKHITHA SHABBIR WIFE OF MR. MOHAMMED SHABBIR

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA

J NOS. 2 AND 3 AT Location: NO.79/1, 2^ND CROSS, HIGH

COURT OF LAVELLE ROAD, KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. P. SATISH PAI SON OF LATE NARASIMHA PAI

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9,

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026

HC-KAR

'ASHWINI', 8^TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,

SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 080.

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN C.C.NO.29923/2015 PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.J.M ON I.A. FILED UNDER SEC.243(2) OF

CR.PC R/W 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged an order dated

01.12.2025 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.29923/2015, by which their application under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was rejected. 2. The respondent initiated proceedings to prosecute

the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026

HC-KAR

'the NI Act'). After his sworn statement was recorded, the trial Court took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners entered appearance and obtained bail. Thereafter, the trial in the case began and the respondent was examined as PW-1. He was extensively cross-examined. Later, the petitioner No.2 was examined as DW-1. At the time of his cross-examination, he filed an application under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for a forensic examination of the signatures found on the cheque along with his admitted signature. The said application was rejected by the trial Court in terms of the impugned order on the following

grounds:

(i) The accused/petitioners in the reply notice did not specifically deny the signature on the cheque.

(ii) In the cross-examination of PW-1 in O.S.No.3098/2013 filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque, not even a suggestion was made that the signature

on the cheque was not of the petitioners.

(iii) The cheque return memo dated 04.03.2003 issued by the banker did not disclose that the trial signature deffered but it was returned on the

ground that the account was blocked.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17737 CRL.P No. 3170 of 2026

HC-KAR

(iv) That there was no suggestion by the petitioners to PW-1 in the course of cross-examination that the signature found on the cheque was not of the accused No.2 and that the petitioner No.2 did not even deny his signature when he was examined in

chief.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners

are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the cheque in question was a blank cheque that was handed over by the petitioners to one Mr.Avinash Amarlal and was not handed over to the respondent for repayment of any debt. Therefore, the cheque in question had to be sent for forensic examination. He also contends that the petitioners have specifically claimed that Mr.Avinash Amarlal was in possession of a cheque book of the petitioners and that whenever he financed the petit