Dismissed

E. Guru Reddy v. M.Kasim Vali

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2023CRLP/5625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal petition under Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a lower court's order dismissing an application to summon a bank branch manager. The court held that since the documents were already in the record,there was no necessity to summon the official under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on Banker's Books Evidence Act principles.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition No.5625 of 2022 seeking quashing of the order dismissing the summons application is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

E. Guru Reddy Vs M.Kasim Vali — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.5625 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The Criminal Petition No.5625 of 2022, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant, seeking to quash the order dated 18.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1941 of 2022 in C.C.No.100 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni.

¶5

Brief facts of the case are that, a private complaint has been filed by the petitioner herein against 1^st respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated in the complaint that the accused issued two post dated cheques in favour of the complainant and by presenting one cheque, when it was dishonoured, the present case has been filed. Pending disposal of the said case, when initially an application has been filed by the complainant for issuance of summons to the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Yemmiganur, the said application was dismissed on technical grounds. Subsequently, thecomplainant made another application vide

¶6

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.1034 of 2022 in C.C.No.100 of 2017 to summon the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Yemmiganur to produce account extract/ledger bearing No.065210027050658 and return memo dated 20.04.2016 in respect of cheque bearing No.000029 dated 12.10.2016 and to give evidence with reference to the same on the ground that Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank merged with Union Bank of India and the said application was also dismissed on 25.04.2022. As the accused denied issuance of the cheque, as Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank merged with Union Bank of India, in order to establish the case of the complainant, the present petition is filed seeking to summon the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Yemmiganur and to produce account extract/ledger of the accused and return memo dated 20.12.2016 in respect of cheque bearing No.000029, dated 12.10.2016 and in order to give evidence thereon.

¶8

Heard and perused the record.

¶9

The petitioner herein filed the present complaint against 1^st

¶10

respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The present petition is

¶11

¶12

filed seeking to summon the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Yemmiganur to produce account extract of the ledger of the accused and return memo dated 20.12.2016 in respect of cheque bearing No.000029, dated 12.10.2016 and in order to give evidence thereon.It is the case of 1^st respondent that the documents which the petitioner herein intends to rely upon were already part of the record. When such is the case, while dealing with applications to summon Branch Managers from different banks or officials or public funtionaries,in general,the Courts must observe restraint, in view of the guidelines laid down in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner and another Vs M. Ramakrishna and others¹ . It is quite evident that when the petitioner intends to rely upon documents,which are made part of the record, there would not be any necessity to summon the head of the branch since the documents issued by the bank are presumed to be true. Except filing an application to summon the Branch Manager of the said bank, no reasons have been assigned as to how the evidence of the proposed witness is necessary in the present case. The trial

¶13

12012 (5) ALD 291

¶14

¶15

Court rightly placed reliance on Sections 4 and 5 of the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891 and rejected the request of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is on correct lines and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impuged order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶16

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitionis dismissed.

¶17

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶18

pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶20

02.03.2023 ARB

¶21

¶22