Smt. Kamala D Vs Smt. Pavithra

SMT. PAVITHRA W/O SRI. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.76/5, NEAR ANNAPURNESHWARI SCHOOL, ANDANAPPA LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR, TAVEREKERE, BENGALURU -562 130.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B.V., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:46304 CRL.P No. 11264 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE II ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-13) BENGALURU IN CC.NO.12833/2024 DATED 16.07.2025, ALLOW THIS APPLICATION AND SEND THE SIGNATURE BELOW THE DATE ON THE CHEQUE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., disputing the signature on the cheque, pointing out the corrections made therein and sought a direction

¶27

from the trial Court to get it verified by an expect, to prove the innocence of the accused. The said application has been rejected vide impugned order, which is assailed in this petition.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:46304 CRL.P No. 11264 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶32

and perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

As could be seen from the impugned order the specific plea of the accused was that she lost the signed blank cheque in the complainant's house, which was subsequently tampered by overwriting the date and tampering the signature.

¶34

Learned Magistrate has observed that the

¶35

accused did not dispute the cheque or the signature appearing thereon at any earlier stage. Further, during the cross examination of P.W.1, it was suggested that on 10.05.2024 accused having visited the complainant's house and due to an emergency, a blank signed cheque and blank signed on-demand promissory note were left behind, which suggestion was denied by PW.1. It is also observed that while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., an opportunity was given to the accused to explain the circumstances

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46304 CRL.P No. 11264 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

appearing against her, however, accused has chosen to remain silent and did not assert any of the contentions now raised in the application.

¶39

The material on record goes to show that when the case was posted for final arguments, accused came up with the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination, which was allowed by the Court. Subsequently, he filed the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

The reasons assigned by the trial Court stating that ‘the application seeking to send the cheque to a handwriting expert was filed at belated stage, without assigning any justifiable or cogent reasons and therefore, it is not necessary to send the cheque to a handwriting expert for obtaining an opinion’, cannot be found fault with. It is for the complainant to prove his case against the accused and the learned Magistrate based on the evidence adduced by the respective parties, has to decide the matter in accordance with law. It is submitted that

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46304 CRL.P No. 11264 of 2025

¶42