M. KRISHNA @ M.MUNIKRISHNAPPA, vs VASUNDHARA BUILDERS,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
M. KRISHNA @ M.MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRI.MARIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT SIRIGANDHA,
ST
NO.26/2, 1 MAIN ROAD,
80 FT. ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
BENGALURU-560 060.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH BHAT Y.H..,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
a.
b.
VASUNDHARA BUILDERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING TIN NO 29600610685,
NO.75/2, RING ROAD,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
ANIL G MANAKAME,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O SRI GANAPATHI MANAKAME,
SHUBHA ANIL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O. SRI ANIL G. MANAKAME,
BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
TH ND
NO. 286/A, 9 MAIN, 2 CROSS
HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560019
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
2. ANIL G MANAKAME,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O SRI GANAPATHI MANAKAME
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 286/A
TH ND
9 MAIN, 2 CROSS
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560019
3. SHUBHA ANIL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O. SRI ANIL G. MANAKAME,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
TH ND
NO. 286/A 9 MAIN, 2 CROSS
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560019
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO
C.C.NO.22647/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
HON’BLE XXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
1. Call for the records pertaining to
c.c.no.22647/2017 pending on the file of the court
of Hon’ble XXIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
2. Setting aside/quashing the order dated 05.04.2025
in CC.No.22647/2017 passed by the court of
Honble XXIII Addl. CJM, Benglauru (Ch-23), on i.e.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
under section 39 r/w section 41 of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 filed by the
petitioner/complaint, consequent allow the i.a
under sec. 39 r/w 41 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 filed by the complainant in
C.C.No.22647/2017 on the file of the court of
Honble XXIII Addl. CJM, Benglauru (ch-23) as
prayer for by the petitioner/complainant and to
grant such other relief/s which this Hon’ble court
deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
2. The petitioner had filed a private complaint under
Section 200 read with Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 in PCR No.10759 of 2017.
After recordal of sworn statement and taking
cognizance came to be registered as CC No.22647 of
2017. In the said matter, the petitioner having led
his evidence, respondents have also led his evidence,
the matter is now posted for final arguments. At that
stage, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 39 read with Section 41 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BSA”) to refer Ex.P.14 and the postal
acknowledgement card to the handwriting expert for
examination, the said application having been
rejected vide order dated 05.04.2025. It is in that
background that the petitioner is before this Court
seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that;
3.1. Ex.P.14 is the basis on which the cheques in
question had been issued, inasmuch as the
debt due and liable to be paid would have to be
ascertained on the basis of the said agreement
at Ex.P.14, whereunder recognizing the dues of
respondent-accused, the said cheques had been
issued to the petitioner.
3.2. On that ground he submits that not only
issuance of the cheque but also the aspect of
debt due and liable to be paid being required to
be established by the petitioner. The said
agreement at Ex.P.14 having been denied by
respondent during the course of the cross-
examination, the said document is required to
refer to handwriting experts to ascertain if the
said document has been executed by the
respondents or not.
3.3. In this regard he relies upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v.
Pali Ram reported in AIR 1979 SC 14 more
particularly para 29 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
29. The matter can be viewed from another angle,
also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge
using his own eyes to compare the disputed
writing with the admitted writing, even without the
aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the
Judge should, as a matter of prudence and
caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to
the identity of a handwriting which forms the
sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a
person accused of an offence, solely on
comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not
advisable that a Judge should take upon himself
the task of comparing the admitted writing with
the disputed one to find out whether the two
agree with each other; and the prudent course is
to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert .
3.4. By relying on Pali Ram’s case , his submission
is that though there is no legal bar on the judge
using his own eyes to compare the disputed
writing with admitted writing, even without the
aid of evidence of any handwriting expert, the
judge should, as a matter of prudence and
caution essentially to base his finding with
regard to the identity of handwriting when a
particular document formed the sheet-anchor of
the prosecution against the person accused of
an offence.
3.5. His submission is that the petitioner has led the
evidence of one of the witnesses to the said
agreement. But however, the petitioner does
not at a later stage, after the arguments were
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
heard, since no further evidence is being led by
the petitioner. Be at the mercy of the ocular
examination of the learned Magistrate as
regards the signatures on the disputed
documents vis-a-vis the admitted documents.
3.6. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Thiruvengadam Pillai v.
Navaneethammal, reported in AIR 2008 SC
1541, more particularly para 15 thereof, which
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
15. While there is no doubt that court can compare
the disputed handwriting/signature/finger
impression with the admitted
handwriting/signature/finger impression, such
comparison by court without the assistance of any
expert, has always been considered to be
hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is
no bar to a court to compare the disputed finger
impression with the admitted finger impression, it
goes without saying that it can record an opinion or
finding on such comparison, only after an analysis
of the characteristics of the admitted finger
impression and after verifying whether the same
characteristics are found in the disputed finger
impression. The comparison of the two thumb
impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance.
Further, a finding in the judgment that there
appeared to be no marked differences between the
admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb
impression, without anything more, cannot be
accepted as a valid finding that the disputed
signature is of the person who has put the
admitted thumb impression. Where the court finds
that the disputed finger impression and admitted
thumb impression are clear and where the court is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
in a position to identify the characteristics of
fingerprints, the court may record a finding on
comparison, even in the absence of an expert's
opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression
is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should
not hazard a guess by a casual perusal. The
decision in Murari Lal [(1997) 7 SCC 110 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 992] and Lalit Popli [(1980) 1 SCC 704 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 330] should not be construed as
laying a proposition that the court is bound to
compare the disputed and admitted finger
impressions and record a finding thereon,
irrespective of the condition of the disputed finger
impression. When there is a positive denial by the
person who is said to have affixed his finger
impression and where the finger impression in the
disputed document is vague or smudgy or not
clear, making it difficult for comparison, the court
should hesitate to venture a decision based on its
own comparison of the disputed and admitted
finger impressions. Further, even in cases where
the court is constrained to take up such
comparison, it should make a thorough study, if
necessary with the assistance of counsel, to
ascertain the characteristics, similarities and
dissimilarities. Necessarily, the judgment should
contain the reasons for any conclusion based on
comparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses
to record a finding thereon. The court should avoid
reaching conclusions based on a mere casual or
routine glance or perusal.
3.7. By relying on Thiruvengadam Pillai’s case,
his submission is that even in respect of thumb
impression, though the Court can compare the
disputed finger impression, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that it would be prudent for
expert opinion to be obtained in that regard.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
3.8. The above writ petition being filed by the
petitioner against the respondent to contend
that in those proceedings also respondents
having denied the signature on indemnity bond
undertaking and rental agreement the
application having been dismissed by the trial
Court, in the writ petition the said application
came to be allowed by Co-ordinate Bench by
relying on Pali Ram’s case. His submission
therefore is that even in the present case the
said application may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that;
4.1. Not only signature of Ex.P.14 has been denied
by the respondent. The signatures on Ex.P.1 to
P3 being the cheques have also been denied by
the respondent.
4.2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits
that those documents are also referred to
forensic examination by handwriting experts,
he would have no objection for Ex.P.14 and the
postal acknowledgment being referred to the
Handwriting expert.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
5. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following;
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 05.04.2027 passed by the
XXIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru in
CC No.24647 of 2017 is set aside.
iii. Consequently, the application under Section 39
read with Section 41 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 filed by the petitioner in
CC No.22647 of 2017 is allowed.
iv. Though no particular application has been filed
by either the petitioner or the respondent,
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 have also been referred to the
handwriting expert for examination to ascertain
whether the signatures appearing on the said
cheques are those of the respondent.
v. The Magistrate shall forward the admitted
signature and the disputed signature as
described in the application under Section 39
r/w Section 41 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60943
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010419112025
Adhiniyam, 2023 to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL), Sarjapur-Marathahalli Road,
th
Madiwala, Venkatapura, HSR Layout 5 Sector,
Bengaluru— 560068 within a period of 15 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vi. The Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory
is directed to submit a report to the Magistrate
within 30 days of receipt of the said document.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Verified