SRI T DILEEP KUMAR SHETTY vs SMT JAYALAKSHMI Y C

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4859 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI T DILEEP KUMAR SHETTY
S/O HIRIYANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
TH
PRESENTLY R/AT D.NO 129, 16 CROSS
A BLOCK, J.P.NAGAR,
MYSORE

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT JAYALAKSHMI Y C
W/O S.V.KISHORE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO 463, 11 CROSS
TH RD
7 MAIN, GUKULAM 3 STAGE
MYSORE

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S VENUGOPALA., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE
DATED 04.03.2025 IN THE CC.NO.37650/2022 ON THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.45 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

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












Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
Set aside the order passed by the court of the VII Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore dated 04.03.2025 in
the CC.No.37650/2022 on the application filed by the
petitioner u/s.45 Indian Evidence Act.


2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, in PCR No.1609 of 2022. After recording
the sworn statement, the complaint was registered
as C.C. No.37650 of 2022.

3. Notice was issued to the petitioner, who entered
appearance before the trial Court.

4. The complainant led evidence and was cross-
examined. When the matter was posted for the
evidence of the accused, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act seeking reference of the subject cheque to a
handwriting expert. The ground urged was that
respondent No.2 had forcibly obtained a blank signed
cheque from the petitioner and that the particulars
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


appearing on the cheque, except the signature, had
not been written by him. The petitioner, therefore,
sought examination by a handwriting expert to
ascertain who had written the particulars on the
cheque.

5. The application was opposed by respondent No.2. It
was contended that the statutory notice issued upon
dishonour of the cheque had not been replied to by
the petitioner; that the petitioner had admitted his
signature on the cheque and the Memorandum of
Understanding entered into between the parties; and
that the application had been filed only with a view
to delay the proceedings.

6. The learned Magistrate, after considering the rival
contentions, dismissed the application. The
Magistrate took note of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the parties, the admission of
the signature on the cheque and the fact that the
petitioner's defence was that the cheque was blank
when it was obtained by the complainant. The
Magistrate was of the view that there was no
necessity to refer the cheque to the Forensic Science
Laboratory or to a handwriting expert.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025



7. The learned Magistrate further observed that the
petitioner had admitted his signature on the cheque
and that the mere fact that the other particulars had
been filled in by another person would not, by itself,
invalidate the cheque. The Magistrate also referred to
Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while
considering the effect of a signed blank instrument.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the
petitioner is before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani
Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam , reported in
MANU/SC/8878/2006, more particularly paragraph
12 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
" 12. Section 243 (2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an
inquiry under the Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence triable by
him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the
interest of justice, he directs to send the document for
enabling the same to be compared by a hand-writing expert
because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable
the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing
with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to
reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The
appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if
the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has
relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the
appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case,
the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the
examination and opinion of the hand-writing expert has
deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being
given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her,
there is no fair trial. 'Fair trial' includes fair and proper
opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing
evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of
that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of
procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously
followed, and courts should be jealous in seeing that there is
no breach of them. We have not been able to appreciate the
view of the learned Judge of the High Court that the petitioner
has filed application under Section 243 Cr.P.C. without naming
any person as witness or anything to be summoned, which are
to be sent for handwriting expert for examination. As noticed
above, Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. refers to a stage when the
prosecution closes its evidence after examining the witnesses
and the accused has entered upon his defence. The appellant
in this case requests for sending the cheque, in question, for
the opinion of the hand-writing expert after the respondent
has closed her evidence, the Magistrate should have granted
such a request unless he thinks that the object of the appellant
is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings. In the
circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in this
appeal upholding the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and
not sustainable."

9. By relying upon Kalyani Baskar , learned counsel
submits that the accused is entitled to a fair trial and
that the right to defend includes the right to adduce
evidence in support of the defence. According to him,
when the petitioner disputes the authorship of the
particulars filled in the cheque, the cheque ought to
have been referred to a handwriting expert so that
the petitioner has an opportunity to establish his
defence.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025



10. Learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R.
Muralidhar , reported in MANU/SC/7523/2008, more
particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder:
"7. When a contention has been raised that the complainant
has misused the cheque, even in a case where a presumption
can be raised under Section 118(a) or 139 of the said Act, an
opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing
evidence in rebuttal thereof. As the law places the burden on
the accused, he must be given an opportunity to discharge it.
An accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend
himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
right to defend oneself and for that purpose to adduce
evidence is recognized by the Parliament in terms of sub-
section (2) of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which reads as under:
'Section 243 - Evidence for defence
(1) ….
(2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence,
applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling
the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination
or cross-examination, or the production of any document or
other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he
considers that such application should be refused on the
ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or
for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be
recorded by him in writing:
Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had
the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before
entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall
not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is
satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.'
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


8. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which
should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is the
accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that
the court being the master of the proceedings must determine
as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of
sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bona fide or not
or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant
material. But ordinarily an accused should be allowed to
approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to
summoning of witnesses etc. If permitted to do so, steps
therefor, however, must be taken within a limited time. There
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused should not
be allowed to unnecessarily protracting the trial or summon
witnesses whose evidence would not be at all relevant."

11. By relying upon T. Nagappa's case , learned counsel
submits that the right of an accused to defend
himself is a facet of the right to fair trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He
submits that where the accused seeks assistance of
the Court to obtain expert evidence in support of his
defence, such request ought to be considered
favourably, subject to the relevance of the evidence
sought to be produced.

12. On the strength of the above decisions, learned
counsel contends that the trial Court ought to have
allowed the application and referred the cheque for
examination by a handwriting expert.

13. Heard Sri Ranjan Kumar K., learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri V. Venugopala, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. Perused the papers.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025



14. The facts necessary for consideration of the present
petition are not in dispute. The petitioner admits his
signature on the subject cheque. His defence is that
respondent No.2 forcibly obtained a blank signed
cheque and that the particulars appearing on the
cheque, other than the signature, were filled in by
someone else. The application filed before the trial
Court is confined to ascertaining whether the
particulars on the cheque were written by the
petitioner or by another person.

15. The first question that arises for consideration is
whether the authorship of the particulars filled in a
cheque, when the signature of the drawer is
admitted, is a matter which requires examination by
a handwriting expert for the purpose of rebutting the
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.

16. The accused admitted having signed the cheque but
contended that he had handed over a signed blank
cheque and that the particulars were filled in by
another person. The fact that the particulars in a
cheque were filled in by a person other than the
drawer is immaterial for determining whether the
cheque was issued towards discharge of a debt or
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


liability. The presumption arising under Section 139
cannot be rebutted merely by a report of a
handwriting expert and that no useful purpose would
be served by permitting such examination.

17. Even if the opinion of the handwriting expert were to
establish that the particulars appearing on the
cheque were not written by the petitioner, that
circumstance, by itself, would not rebut the
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The report would establish only the
authorship of the writing and would not establish
whether the cheque was obtained forcibly, whether it
was issued towards discharge of a liability, or
whether any legally enforceable debt existed.

18. The allegation that the cheque was forcibly obtained
is a defence which the petitioner is entitled to raise
before the trial Court. However, the question as to
who filled in the particulars on the cheque is distinct
from the question whether the cheque was obtained
by force or coercion. A handwriting expert's opinion
on the authorship of the particulars would not
establish the circumstances in which the cheque
came into the possession of respondent No.2. The
petitioner is at liberty to establish that defence by
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


such other relevant and admissible evidence as may
be available to him.

19. The decisions in Kalyani Baskar and T. Nagappa
do recognise the right of an accused to adduce
evidence in support of his defence and emphasise
that a request for assistance in securing evidence
must be considered in the light of the requirements
of a fair trial. However, those decisions do not lay
down that every request for expert examination of a
cheque must necessarily be allowed. The Court must
examine whether the evidence sought is relevant and
whether it would assist in determining a material
issue in the case.

20. In Kalyani Baskar's case , the accused disputed the
genuineness of her signature on the cheque. The
expert opinion was therefore sought to determine
whether the signature itself was that of the accused.
In the present case, the petitioner admits his
signature and disputes only the authorship of the
particulars filled in the cheque. The distinction is
material.

21. In T. Nagappa's case , the accused sought an
examination of the age of the signature vis-à-vis the
other writings on the cheque. His defence was that
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


the cheque had been issued as security in the year
1999 against a hand loan which had already been
repaid, but had subsequently been misused. The
expert examination was sought to ascertain whether
the signature and the other writings were made at
the same time.

22. The present application, on the other hand, seeks
only to ascertain who wrote the particulars appearing
on the cheque. In the present case, the cheque is
dated 30.07.2022. It was presented on the same
date and was subsequently presented on
28.09.2022. It is also seen that the corrections
appearing on the cheque have been counter-initialled
by the petitioner. These circumstances are relevant
to the defence and are matters which the trial Court
may consider along with the other evidence on
record. However, the decisive consideration for the
present application is that the proposed handwriting
examination would determine only whether the
particulars were written by the petitioner or another
person. Such an opinion would not assist in
determining whether the cheque was issued towards
discharge of a debt or liability.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025



23. The right of an accused to lead evidence in support
of his defence is undoubtedly a valuable right. At the
same time, such right does not entitle an accused to
insist upon the production of evidence which would
not assist in deciding the issue in controversy. The
trial Court is required to consider whether the
proposed evidence is relevant and necessary for a
just decision of the case. In the present matter, the
learned Magistrate has declined the request for
expert examination. Having regard to the nature of
the defence, no error can be found in the said order
warranting interference by this Court.

24. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty
to raise all legally permissible defences before the
trial Court, including the contention that the cheque
was forcibly obtained and was not issued towards
discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability.
The observations made in this order are confined to
the request for examination of the handwriting
appearing on the cheque and shall not prejudice the
consideration of the defence on its merits.

25. In that view of the matter, the criminal petition does
not merit consideration and is liable to be dismissed
and passes the following;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61919
CRL.P No. 4859 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010223472025


ORDER

i. Criminal petition stands dismissed .

ii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to raise all
defences before the trial Court.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21