Karnataka High Court
Sri Kariyappa Chalawadi vs Sri Manjesh M C on 14 November, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46739
CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15140 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. KARIYAPPA CHALAWADI
SON OF B.BASAPPA CHALAWADI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MEDLERI VILLAGE,
RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-581 115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MANJESH M.C.
SON OF CHANNARAYAPPA,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
LAKSHMI T
Location:
RESIDING AT NO.22,
High Court MALLEPURA VILLAGE,
of Karnataka
REDDIHALLI POST,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-562 110.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO: (A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL.
NO.1221/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-63);
B) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.09.2025
IN CRL.APPEAL.NO:1221/2022 ON I.A UNDER SECTION 45 OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46739
CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025
HC-KAR
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT READ WITH SECTION 39 BSA, 2023 AS
PER ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ORDER TO ALLOW THE
APPLICATION THE APPLICATION AS PER ANNEXURE-G, BY
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated
24.09.2025 passed by the Court of LXII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63) Bengaluru, in Crl.A
No.1221/2022, whereby application filed under Section 45
of the Evidence Act r/w Section 39 of BSA, 2023 was
dismissed.
2. Heard and perused the material on record.
3. Petitioner was the accused in
C.C.No.34229/2018 on the file of the Court of XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The
learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 13.09.2022,
convicted him for the offence punishable under Section
NC: 2025:KHC:46739
HC-KAR
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act for short)
and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.4,02,000/-, in
default, to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months.
4. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before
the Sessions Court, he filed an application to refer the
signature in the cheque - Ex.P1(a) and the signature in
Ex.D6, i.e., the specimen signature in the database of the
State Bank of India, Ranebennur Branch, Haveri, to the
fingerprint Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru, for comparison
of the said signatures, on the ground that the signatures
found are entirely different. The learned Sessions Judge
vide impugned order, rejected the said application.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner relying on a
decision of the Apex Court in Ajit Savant Majagvai v.
State of Karnataka reported in (1997) 7 SCC 110,
contended that the Court has power to compare the
disputed signature with the admitted signature, but
normally and particularly in case of slightest doubt the
matter should be left to the wisdom of the expert.
NC: 2025:KHC:46739
HC-KAR
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel that
the petitioner has disputed the signature on the cheque -
Ex.P1. The signatures in Ex.D6, specimen signatures of
the petitioner, is entirely different then the signature
found on the cheque and therefore, contended that the
impugned order dismissing his application is unsustainable
and liable to be set aside.
7. The complaint was filed on 03.12.2018.
Petitioner/accused has not filed any application before the
trial Court to seek an experts opinion to compare the
signatures found in Ex.P1 and Ex.D6, though he disputed
the signature. In fact an application was filed by the
complainant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act r/w
Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to send Ex.P1(a) -
cheque/signature, Ex.P7-Promisory note and Ex.D7 -
Postal acknowledgment for the opinion of an expert, to
find as to whether the signatures on these documents
belong to accused or not. The said application was
objected by the petitioner/accused. The learned Magistrate
NC: 2025:KHC:46739
HC-KAR
by an order dated 24.05.2022 dismissed the said
application.
8. The appeal was filed before the Sessions Court,
by the accused in the year 2022. When the matter was set
down for arguments, in the year 2025, petitioner has
come up with an application seeking an opinion of the
handwriting expert to compare the signatures found on
the cheque - Ex.P1 and the document at Ex.D6. The
defence of the accused before the trial Court was that the
cheque was stolen by one Sri Ramachandrappa and it was
misused by the complainant. It is relevant to mention, as
could be seen from the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge that the accused took time before the trial
Court on the ground of settlement, but he did not settle
the matter. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the
application, observing that only to drag the matter the
accused has filed the application after a lapse of 7 years
and no such application was filed before the trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:46739
HC-KAR
9. Having perused the impugned order and the
material on record, I am of the considered view that no
grounds are made to allow the petition and to set aside
the impugned order. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
HB
