Allowed

Sri Timmesh Kumar S H v. Sri Mahantesh S/O Rayanagouda Patil

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024CRL.P/102376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour case, the accused disputed signatures on hand loan agreements and sought expert comparison. The High Court held the admitted cheque signature could serve as the standard, found the Magistrate's rejection erroneous, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed expert comparison.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Section 45 Evidence Act application allowed; disputed signatures on Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15 directed to be compared with admitted signature at Ex.P.1(a); petitioner to deposit ex

Sri Timmesh Kumar S H Vs Sri Mahantesh S/O Rayanagouda… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102376 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. TIMMESH KUMAR S. H AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. PROJECT MANAGER, R/O PLOT NO. 51, “MADINI COLONY”, SY.NO 102 (KRISHANPUR V. GRAM) PADMARAJ NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580030 TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD OFFICER ADDRESS HAVERI DISTRICT NIRMITHI KENDRA THE D.C OFFICE, DEVAGIRI, HAVERI. TQ. DIST. HAVERI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. MAHANTESH S/O. RAYANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O:# 196, 5^TH CROSS,RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: # 157, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, DHARWAD, TQ; DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. AVINASH S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD CC NO.1966/2022 THEREBY REJECTING APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 45 OF EVIDENCE ACT, IN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the order dated 25.06.2024 passed in CC No.1966/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act came to be rejected.

¶20

The respondent has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner/ accused has issued a cheque - Ex.P.1 for making payment of debt which has been availed by the petitioner under the hand loan agreements - Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15. The petitioner/ accused disputed his signature on Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15 in his evidence. The petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, referring the disputed signatures contained on Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15 to the hand writing expert to compare the admitted signatures on vakalath and affidavit. The said application

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶22

came to be contested by the respondent by filing objections.

¶23

After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate has rejected the said application by order dated 25.06.2024. The said order is challenged in this petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that earlier application was filed with a same prayer to send Ex.P.15 to the hand writing expert came to be rejected on the ground that, the admitted signatures are not stated in the application and he has not disclosed his defence. He submits that, after leading evidence, he again filed application but, again it came to be rejected on the ground that, his earlier application has been rejected. He submits that, when he has disputed the signature and as the cheque amount is huge, it is necessary to ascertain whether there is a legally enforceable debt which is stated

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶28

in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15 to be proved in accordance with

¶29

law, with this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent would contend

¶31

that, the earlier application filed by the petitioner seeking the same relief has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. The admitted document containing the signature stated in the application, cannot said to be admitted as they came into existence during the proceedings. He contends that the learned Magistrate considering the said aspect, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and the material placed on record.

¶33

The cheque - Ex.P.1 is said to be issued by the petitioner to the respondent for making payment of legally enforceable debt which are contained in the hand loan agreements - Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15. The petitioner/

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶35

accused has admitted his signature on cheque - Ex.P.1, but he has disputed his signature on Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15. When the petitioner/ accused has disputed his signature on Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15, it is for him to prove that, they are not his signatures. For the purpose of said aspect, the said documents are to be sent to the expert for comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. The documents admitted as per the application are vakalath and affidavit. The said vakalath and affidavit are signed by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, they cannot said to be containing admitted signatures. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that he has admitted his signature on cheque - Ex.P.1 and the same can be compared with the disputed signatures contained in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15.

¶36

Considering the said aspect, it is necessary that

¶37

the disputed signatures contained in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15 are required to be compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner contained in Ex.P.1 which is at Ex.P.1(a).

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶39

Without considering these aspects, the learned Magistrate has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶40

In the result, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed in CC No.1966/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad, is set aside.

¶43

iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, stands allowed.

¶44

iv) Learned Magistrate is directed to send the disputed signatures of the petitioner/ accused contained in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.15 to be compared with his

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12960 CRL.P No. 102376 of 2024

¶46

admitted signature contained in Ex.P.1

¶47

which is at Ex.P.1(a).

¶48

v) The petitioner/ accused has to deposit the fees of the hand writing expert.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶51

PJ CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Timmesh Kumar S H v. Sri Mahantesh S/O Rayanagouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Timmesh Kumar S H v. Sri Mahantesh S/O Rayanagouda Patil

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

Lakshmi Narayan S/O. Sheshanna Vs Madhukappa Poojar S/O. Yamunappa

Shri Kumar S/O. Prahalad Rao Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chennavva W/O.Somappa Kadlennavar Vs Shri Ningappa S/O. Ramu Kumbar

The Manager , M/W Reliance General Insurance Vs C Lakshmi Narasamma

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Addl. Land Acquisition Officer MP-3

Shakshi Jain D/O Naveen Jain Vs the State of Karnataka