MOHANRAJ B K vs SATHISH KUMAR H N

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

MOHANRAJ B K
S/O. KRISHNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
BHEVINA KUBBE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA
MANDAYA DISTRICT-571434

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHAD S A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SATHISH KUMAR H N
S/O. NARASIMHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
HIREMARALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA
PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571434

…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUNITHA., &
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B.,
SRI. ANIL KUMAR B.R.,
SRI. MUKUND.P., ADVOCATES)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN
C.C.NO.537/2022, THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT REGISTERED ON THE
FILE OF LEARNED HON’BLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,
AT PANDAVAPURA AND ETC.












Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025



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:
[a] To call for the entire records in CC.No.537/2022
the Private Complaint registered on the file of
learned Hon'ble ll Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
at Pandavapura.
[b] To Set-Asp the impugned order dated: 24th
December 2024, passed by the Hon'ble II Addl Civil
Judge and JMFC at Pandavapura pending in
CC.No.537/2022 against the Petitioner for the
offences punishable under sections 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act,
[c] To grant such other relief or reliefs as this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant, in facts and
circumstances of the case including the cost of the
Petition by owing the above Petition, in the interest
of justice and equity.


2. The respondent filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’),
alleging dishonour of a cheque purportedly issued by
the petitioner. Upon recording the sworn statement,
the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offence
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025


and issued summons to the petitioner, who entered
appearance before the trial Court.

3. At the stage of recording evidence, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Evidence Act’), seeking to refer the subject cheque
to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for
examination to ascertain whether the signature on
the cheque was that of the petitioner and whether
the other particulars entered therein had been filled
in by the petitioner.

4. The trial Court, by order dated 24.12.2024, rejected
the application on the ground that the petitioner had
not disputed the signature on the cheque but had
disputed only the particulars filled in therein. The
trial Court held that, when the signature was
admitted, a reference to the FSL for examination of
the contents of the cheque was not warranted. The
said order is called into question in the present
petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had signed the subject cheque in 2018 and
retained it as a blank cheque. It is contended that
the cheque was misplaced or stolen in 2022,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025


whereupon the petitioner informed the bank of its
loss and requested that payment under the cheque
be stopped.

6. On this basis, learned counsel contends that the
respondent, who was the petitioner's landlord at the
relevant time, had filled in the particulars of the
cheque after it was allegedly misplaced or stolen. It
is further submitted that no legally enforceable debt
or liability is due from the petitioner to the
respondent and that, unless the cheque is referred to
the FSL to ascertain who filled in its particulars, the
petitioner would be prejudiced in defending the
proceedings. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks
setting aside of the impugned order and allowing of
the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence
Act.

7. Heard Sri Nishad S.A., learned counsel for the
petitioner, and perused the material on record.

8. The complaint was filed on 10.08.2022, alleging that
a cheque dated 07.07.2022, purportedly issued by
the petitioner, had been dishonoured. A statutory
notice dated 14.07.2022 was issued and served on
the petitioner on 16.07.2022.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025



9. As payment was not made within the statutory
period, the complaint came to be filed. It is
significant that, according to the petitioner, the
request to stop payment was made to the bank on
the very date on which the cheque was presented for
encashment. The petitioner also contends that the
cheque had been signed by him in 2018 and had
remained blank in his possession until it was
allegedly misplaced or stolen in 2022.

10. The explanation offered by the petitioner requires
scrutiny in the context of the material on record. The
petitioner claims to have retained a signed blank
cheque for approximately four years and alleges that
it was misplaced or stolen in 2022. However, no
police complaint alleging the loss or theft of the
cheque appears to have been lodged; the material
referred to by the petitioner concerns only the
instructions issued to the bank to stop payment. The
petitioner admits his signature on the cheque and
disputes only the particulars filled in therein.

11. The mere fact that the particulars of a cheque were
not filled in by the drawer does not, by itself,
invalidate the cheque or absolve the drawer of
liability. The relevant questions include whether the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025


cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt
or liability and whether the statutory requirements
under Section 138 of the NI Act have been satisfied.
The identity of the person who filled in the particulars
may be relevant to the defence in the circumstances
of a particular case, but that fact alone is not
determinative of the existence or otherwise of a
legally enforceable debt or liability.

12. Insofar as the question of whether a legally
enforceable debt or liability exists is concerned, the
same will have to be established in the course of the
trial, having regard to the evidence adduced by the
parties and the statutory presumptions under the NI
Act. The petitioner cannot avoid the consequences of
the proceedings merely by contending that the
particulars in the cheque were not filled in by him.
The petitioner admits his signature on the cheque,
and the mere fact that the particulars may have been
filled in by another person would not, by itself,
invalidate the cheque or establish that no legally
enforceable debt or liability existed.

13. The petitioner seeks forensic examination of the
cheque principally to ascertain whether the
particulars therein were filled in by him. However,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025


even if such examination were to establish that the
particulars were filled in by a person other than the
petitioner, that circumstance, by itself, would not be
sufficient to determine the issue of liability or rebut
the statutory presumptions arising under the NI Act.
The petitioner would be at liberty to establish his
defence by adducing such evidence as may be
permissible in law. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the proposed forensic examination,
for the limited purpose stated in the application, has
not been shown to be necessary for the just
adjudication of the proceedings.

14. The trial Court has rejected the application after
taking note of the fact that the petitioner does not
dispute his signature on the cheque and disputes
only the particulars filled in therein. Though the
admission of the signature, by itself, would not
foreclose every possible defence available to the
petitioner, no sufficient ground has been made out in
the present proceedings to interfere with the trial
Court's exercise of discretion in rejecting the
application for forensic examination.

15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The order
dated 24.12.2024 passed by the trial Court rejecting
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54736
CRL.P No. 2636 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010124262025


the application filed by the petitioner under Section
45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is affirmed.

16. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are confined to the question of reference of the
subject cheque for forensic examination. The trial
Court shall independently consider the evidence
adduced by the parties, the statutory presumptions
under the NI Act and the defences available to the
petitioner, and shall dispose of the complaint in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made in this order.


Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE





KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18