Allowed

Sri. Chandrashekhar C Naregal v. Sri. Sainath N Habib

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023CRL.P/102650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged the rejection of an interim application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The High Court quashed the lower court's order, allowing the comparison of petitioner's handwritten samples with the disputed entries.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.08.2023 rejecting the Section 45 application is quashed; the application is allowed and trial court is directed to send samples for expert examination.

Sri. Chandrashekhar C Naregal Vs Sri. Sainath N Habib — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13566 CRL.P No. 102650 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102650 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR C. NAREGAL, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. REVANASIDDESHWARA NILAYA, PLOT NO.14, LAXMI SAI PARK, 2^ND CROSS, SULYA ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. SAINATH N. HABIB, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.23 16:48:44 +0530

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/SEC 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 28.08.2023 PASSED IN CC NO.2864/2022 BY THE I JMFC, HUBBALLI, IN SO FAR REJECTING INTERIM APPLICATION FILED U/S 45 OF EVIDENCE ACT BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13566 CRL.P No. 102650 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.2864/2022 by the J.M.F.C-I Court, Hubballi rejecting the interim application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 45 of The Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity).

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite

¶21

of service of notice, respondent remained absent and unrepresented.

¶22

The respondent-complainant initiated proceedings against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act, which is pending in C.C.No.2864/2022 on the file of J.M.F.C-I Court, Hubballi. During the pendency of proceedings after the evidence of accused, an application has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 45 of the Act praying to compare the admitted signature of respondent-complainant on vakalath and

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13566 CRL.P No. 102650 of 2023

¶24

authority letter with signature of complainant found on the diary-Exs.D2 and 3. The respondent-complainant has filed objection to the said application. After hearing the arguments on both sides, learned Magistrate has rejected the said application by the impugned order, which is challenged in this petition.

¶25

It is the defence of petitioner-accused that he has made payment to the respondent-complainant and in that regard, respondent-complainant has made endorsement in diary-Exs.D2 and 3 as ‘Sai’. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that the said writing as ‘Sai’ is that of the complainant who made at the time of receipt of money from the accused. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the writing in Exs.D2 and D3 is only ‘Sai’, but signature of the complainant on vakalath is different. Even the Trial Court has observed that Exs.D2 and D3 contains numerical and they cannot be compared with alphabetical words. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the signature

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13566 CRL.P No. 102650 of 2023

¶27

made by the respondent-complaint on vakalath is as ‘Sainath’. He further submits that even in deposition, complainant (PW1) has affixed his signature as ‘Sainath’ at the end of his deposition. Therefore, writing of the respondent-complainant in vakalath as ‘Sainath’ and in deposition of PW.1 as ‘Sainath’ which are admitted writings, can be compared with disputed writing as ‘Sai’ in Exs.D2 and D3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that there is no necessity of comparing the numerical in Exs.D2 and D3. In view of the above, Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 45 of the Act by the impugned order. In the result, the following;

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶30

The order dated 28.08.2023 passed in

¶31

C.C.No.2864/2022 pending on the file of JMFC-I Court, Hubballi, rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13566 CRL.P No. 102650 of 2023

¶33

the Act is quashed. The application filed by the petitioneraccused under Section 45 of the Act is allowed.

¶34

The Trial Court is directed to send the admitted writing of respondent-complainant found in vakalath and deposition (PW.1) with the disputed writings found in Exs.D2 and D3 to the handwriting experts.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

AM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. Chandrashekhar C Naregal v. Sri. Sainath N Habib

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekhar C Naregal v. Sri. Sainath N Habib

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh S/O Basappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Ganeshappa K.S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Veeramaheshwara Pattina Souhardha Vs Sri.Karithi Kumar M.

Sri Chandrashekar S/O Basavantappa Hubballi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jeelan Basha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basavaraj S/O Siddappa Chinchewadi Vs the State of Karnataka