Uttam Kumar vs Mohan Kumar
2026 Latest Caselaw 2999 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2999 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Uttam Kumar vs Mohan Kumar on 7 April, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:3060
                                                       CRL.P No. 200125 of 2026


                      HC-KAR



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200125 OF 2026
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:
                      UTTAM KUMAR S/O DASHARATH
                      AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
                      R/O H.NO.10-2-178/29
                      NEAR S.B.COLLEGE
                      B. SHYAM SUNDER NAGAR
                      KALABURAGI-585103
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. S K BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      MOHAN KUMAR
                      S/O SHANKAR RATHOD
                      AGE: 45 YEARS
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA            OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
                      R/O PLOT NO.44, 3RD PHASE, GDA COLONY
COURT OF              FILTERBED ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101
KARNATAKA
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. MALLINATH ASTAGI, ADVOCATE)
                           THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
                      528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
                      SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2025 PASSED BY THE
                      III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI, IN
                      C.C.NO.354/2024 (P.C.NO.1107/2023).

                          THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                      ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-K:3060
                                    CRL.P No. 200125 of 2026


HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                        ORAL ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to set aside the

order dated 27.11.2025 passed in C.C.No.354/2024

(P.C.No.1107/2023) by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

at Kalaburagi.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this

petition is that, the respondent-complainant had filed a

complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act and the case was

registered in C.C.No.354/2024 on 24.11.2025 on the file

of the III Addl. JMFC at Kalaburagi. The summons was

issued to the accused. In response, the accused appeared

before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance

of plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the evidence of PW.1 has

been recorded. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

was recorded and case was posted for defence evidence.

The accused/petitioner did not adduce any evidence and

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3060

HC-KAR

the case was posted for arguments. On 27.11.2025, the

petitioner has filed an application under Section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.P1 for the experts opinion

with regard to the signature on the cheque at Ex.P1(a).

The same came to be rejected by the Trial Court on

27.11.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondent remained absent. No

representation made on behalf of the respondent. Hence,

argument on behalf of respondent is taken as Nil.

4. On examination of the impugned order, it is

clear that the specific defence of the accused is that he

has not taken any loan from the complainant and not

issued any cheque towards the discharge of alleged loan

and the signature at Ex.P1(a) does not belongs to him.

Hence, the bank authorities have issued an endorsement

"funds insufficient". When the accused has denied the

signature on the cheque, the burden lies on the accused to

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3060

HC-KAR

prove that the signature does not belong to him in view of

Section 139 of N.I.Act. Therefore, it is necessary to

provide an opportunity to the accused to send this

disputed cheque for the expert opinion.

5. On perusal of the application filed under Section

45 of Indian Evidence Act, filed by the accused, the accued

has not sought for to verify the disputed signature on the

documents pertaining to the admitted signature. Hence it

is necessary to direct the Trial Court to secure the

specimen signature of the accused given to the concerned

bank and thereafter send the disputed signature at

Ex.P1(a) to the expert opinion. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(a) The appeal is allowed.

(b) The impugned order dated 27.11.2025

(P.C.No.1107/2023) by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed by

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3060

HC-KAR

the petitioner/accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is allowed.

(c) The trial Court is directed to secure the specimen signature of the accused which was given at the time of opening the back account shown in the disputed cheque and thereafter Trial Court is directed to send the same Hand Writing expert as shown in application along with admitted specimen signature given to the bank.

(d) The trial Court is also directed to retain the certified copy of the specimen signature of the accused which were given to the bank and also disputed signature at Ex.P1(a) before sending the same to the concerned expert opinion.