IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY Criminal Petition No. 1178 of 2017 Between:
Bunty K Mehta, S/o Kirti Mehta, Aged about 33 years, Proprietor, F.S. Enterprises, Sy.No.58, Andrahalli Main Road, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 091.
(By Shri.Balakrishna M.R., Advocate) And:
…Petitioner 1. TPC Techno Power Corporation, (LLP), Unit No.2, No.25-A, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058.
2. K.S. Aswathanarayana, Managing Partner, TPC Techno Power Corporation (LLP), Unit No.2, No.25-A, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058.
3. Arun Kumar, Partner, TPC Techno Power Corporation (LLP), Unit No.2, No.25-A, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058.
... Respondents (By Shri.C.S. Ravishankar, Advocate for R-2 Shri.Gopal Gowda H.K., Advocate for R-3) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court at Bengaluru in C.C.No.1643/2015.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is said to be the complainant alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the course of evidence, the accused are said to have filed an application seeking that cheque in question be sent to an handwriting expert to determine the age of the signature on the cheque, as also the contents of the cheque. This is in the backdrop of the accused complaining that there was an earlier personal transaction between the accused and the complainant, whereas the case now filed is in relation to the business transaction of the first respondent – company with the petitioner and the cheques which were issued in the earlier personal relationship, is sought to be mis-utilised and the contents are being filled up, without any consideration and without any consent of the respondents. It is on these assertions that the court below has exercised its discretion in allowing the application and directing that the cheques be sent to an expert.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the very purpose of referring the matter to an expert was unnecessary as the specious defence of the cheques having been issued earlier and which are sought to be misused, is without any foundation. The cheques having been deliberately issued from an old cheque book, cannot be ruled out and the exercise of determining the age of the signatures on the cheque leaf are of the respondents’ own making and that by itself would not establish any defence and therefore when the signatures are not denied and the cheque leaf also not being denied as being that of the respondents’ account, there is hardly any scope for any defence being raised in the tenor in which the respondent seek to urge and hence seeks that the order be set aside.
4. In view of the court below having exercised its discretion in permitting the respondents to have the benefit of an expert’s opinion as regards the cheque in question, there is no warrant for this Court to interfere.
The petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Rd/-