Dismissed¶50

Sri Kariyappa Chalawadi v. Sri Manjesh M C

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025CRL.P/15140/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act; cheque signature dispute; handwriting expert opinion; Section 45 Evidence Act r/w Section 39 BSA 2023; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Crl.A No.1221/2022; C.C.No.34229/2018; belated expert-application in appeal; Finger Print Bureau Madiwala; specimen signature Ex.D6; State Bank of India Ranebennur; Ajit Savant Majagvai (1997) 7 SCC 110; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, the court held that no grounds were made out to allow the petition or to set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the criminal petition. ¶50

Sri Kariyappa Chalawadi Vs Sri Manjesh M C — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.09.2025 of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63), Bengaluru, in Crl.A No.1221/2022 — dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act r/w Section 39 of BSA, 2023 for expert comparison of the cheque signature Ex.P1(a) with the specimen signature Ex.D6 — should be set aside. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The court recorded that the accused, though disputing the cheque signature, had filed no application before the trial Court seeking expert opinion, and raised the demand for expert comparison only belatedly at the appellate stage — leaving no ground to disturb the Sessions Court's rejection of the application.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz, J.) dismissed a criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS filed by the accused convicted under S.138 NI Act (C.C.No.34229/2018; fine Rs.4,02,000/-), who sought to set aside the order dated 24.09.2025 of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63), Bengaluru, in Crl.A No.1221/2022, rejecting his application under S.45 Evidence Act r/w S.39 BSA 2023 for reference of the cheque signature Ex.P1(a) and the specimen signature Ex.D6 (State Bank of India, Ranebennur Branch) to the Finger Print Bureau, Madiwala, Bengaluru. The court noted that although the accused disputed the signature, he never sought expert opinion before the trial Court — where the complainant's own S.45/S.311 Cr.P.C. application had been dismissed on 24.05.2022 — and pressed the demand only in appeal after about seven years, which the Sessions Court viewed as an attempt to drag out the matter. Counsel's reliance on Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110 did not alter the outcome.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:46739 CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15140 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. KARIYAPPA CHALAWADI SON OF B.BASAPPA CHALAWADI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MEDLERI VILLAGE, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-581 115.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. MANJESH M.C. SON OF CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, MALLEPURA VILLAGE, REDDIHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562 110.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46739 CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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.

¶26

Heard and perused the material on record.

¶27

Petitioner was the accused in

¶28

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

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:46739 CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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.

¶33

In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46739 CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is the contention of the learned counsel that

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46739 CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

by an order dated 24.05.2022 dismissed the said application.

¶45

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.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:46739 CRL.P No. 15140 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Having perused the impugned order and the

¶50

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.

¶51

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96

Sri Kariyappa Chalawadi v. Sri Manjesh M C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kariyappa Chalawadi v. Sri Manjesh M C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Abhijit Bhattacharya Vs State of Karnataka by Varthur Police

D Sudharshan Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr. B. Prashanth Raj Vs State by Banaswadi Police Station Bangalore

Sri Mohammed Yasin @ Yaseen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs Munikrishnappa

Sri.Chowdam Suresh Vs State by Mahadevapura P S