HARAPRASAD vs SRINIVAS K T

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 733 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

HARAPRASAD
S/O THANDAVACHAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT AMBEDKAR ROAD
KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT 572130

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRINIVAS K T
S/O LT THIBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT MAHAVEERNAGAR
BEHIND SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT 572130

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
C.C.NO.577/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KUNIGAL AND ETC

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












Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Call for the records in C.C.No.577/2017 on
the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at
Kunigal;
b. Set aside the order dated 14.08.2024 passed
in the criminal case and also to set aside the
order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.Rev
Pet. no. 82/2024 on the file of honble VII
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Tumkur
vide Annexure A, B and B1 and consequently
allow the application field by the petitioner
herein under section 45 of Indian Evidence
Act before the trail court in C.C No.
577/2017;
c. Pass such other orders has this Hon’ble Court
deems fit to pass in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the ends of
justice.

2. Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., read with Sections 138
and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in
PCR No. 117/2017. Upon recording the sworn
statement, the matter was numbered as C.C. No.
577/2017. After evidence was led, the petitioner filed
an application under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to obtain a voice sample
of a defence witness for comparison with the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025


conversation recorded in a compact disc (CD)
produced by the accused along with an application
under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The petitioner
sought permission to record the voice sample of the
witness before the Court and forward it to the
Forensic Science Laboratory for expert comparison.

3. The application was opposed by the respondent on
the ground that it was intended to delay the
proceedings. It was contended that several cheques
issued by the petitioner is a habitual offender, sever
of the cheques issued by the petitioner had been
dishonoured and that convictions had already been
recorded in respect of some of them. It was further
submitted that the proceedings under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act had been pending
since 2017 and that the application for voice
comparison was belated and irrelevant to the case.

4. Accepting the objections, the trial Court, by order
dated 14.08.2024, dismissed the application, holding
that the recording sought to be examined had no
relevance to the case. The trial Court observed that
the petitioner had not disputed the issuance of the
cheque, which had been dishonoured for insufficiency
of funds, and that there was no conversation
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025


between the petitioner and the complainant requiring
voice comparison.

5. The petitioner challenged the said order in Crl. R.P.
No. 82/2024. The revision petition was dismissed by
order dated 30.12.2024, holding that the petitioner
had failed to establish the relevance of the voice
recording to the issues arising in the case or the
necessity for forensic voice analysis. Aggrieved by
the said orders, the petitioner has approached this
Court.

6. On 23.09.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the voice recording was relevant to
the case as it contained a discussion between the
petitioner and a witness for the complainant
concerning a chit fund business, which, according to
the petitioner, had a bearing on the cheque in
question. Learned counsel sought time to place the
transcript of the conversation on record.

7. The transcript has now been placed before this
Court. A perusal of the same reveals that the
conversation is between the petitioner and Sri B. B.
Rangaswamy and relates to certain chit fund
transactions. The transcript does not refer to
respondent No. 2 the complainant, or the cheque
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025


which is the subject matter of the proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No
material has been demonstrated to establish a
connection between the said conversation and the
transaction underlying the dishonoured cheque.

8. In these circumstances, the transcript does not
establish the relevance of the proposed voice
comparison to any issue arising for determination in
the complaint. The mere existence of a recorded
conversation between the petitioner and a third
party, without establishing its nexus to the cheque
transaction, cannot warrant a reference to a forensic
expert. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to
demonstrate that the proposed voice analysis is
necessary for adjudication of the case.

9. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act was instituted in 2017 and has
remained pending for nearly nine years. The
application for voice comparison was rejected by the
trial Court on the ground of lack of relevance, and
the said order was affirmed in revision. Even at this
stage, the transcript produced by the petitioner fails
to establish the relevance of the recording to the
cheque transaction. In the absence of such a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025


connection, permitting the proposed forensic
examination would serve no legitimate evidentiary
purpose and would only further prolong the
proceedings.

10. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the
absence of any demonstrated relevance of the
recording to the cheque transaction, and the
prolonged pendency of the complaint, this Court
finds no ground to interfere with the orders passed
by the trial Court and the revisional Court. The
attempt to pursue a forensic examination without
establishing its relevance to the matter in issue
cannot be permitted to delay the adjudication of the
complaint any further. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

11. In that view of the matter, costs would have to be
imposed. As such, this Court passes the following:

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56984
CRL.P No. 733 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010030672025


ORDER
dismissed
i) Criminal petition is with costs of
₹10,000/- to be paid to the respondent in the
trial Court within 30 days from today.

ii) If the said costs are not paid to the respondent
before the trial Court by that date, the trial
Court would be entitled to strike off the defence
of the petitioner.


Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE










KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8