Accused in a Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour case challenged rejection of his Section 91 Cr.P.C. application to summon the complainant bank's income tax returns. The High Court held the returns were unnecessary since the loan was directly paid to the accused's account and other IT returns were already produced, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:5694 CRL.P No. 3720 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3720 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI G M MALLIKARJUNA S/O SRI. VAMAIAH G.M. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GADI GUDAL VILLAGE, MADIHALIL POST, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK-577601 BELLARI DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI K KOTRESH S/O LATE SRI. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A DOOR NO. 3993/65, ARAVINDA NILAYA, 19TH MAIN, MCC 'B' BLOCK DAVANAGERE-577004.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P, ADVOCATE)
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2023, PASSED BY II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT DAVANGERE, PASSED IN CC NO.3422/2019 (PCR NO.126/2019, IN ORDER SHEET, ON IA FILED BY PETITIONER U/SEC 91 CR.PC, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quashing the order of rejection of the application filed under Section 91 Cr. P. C. by an order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere in CC No.3422/2019.
that the loan was borrowed by one Nagarajaiah and he has put
NC: 2024:KHC:5694 CRL.P No. 3720 of 2023
surety to him, he contends that to discharge the said loan Nagarajaiah sold the property. Whether he has received the sale consideration or not, therefore, it is necessary to verify the IT returns of the Complainant Bank for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 are required, which was sought to be summoned by the petitioner, but the same was rejected by the trial Court. The said documents are necessary for considering the case of the petitioner - accused. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
absent.
NC: 2024:KHC:5694 CRL.P No. 3720 of 2023
bearing No.978 and also another sum of Rs.3 lakhs was paid on 15.06.2017 through cheque bearing No.979 and totally Rs.10 lakhs has been paid to the petitioner - accused through bank transfer and cheques. On 05.12.2018 the petitioner - accused issued a cheque in favour of the Complainant - Bank bearing No.344784 for Rs.10 lakhs, which came to be dishonored, therefore, the complaint came to be filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:5694 CRL.P No. 3720 of 2023
IT returns of 2015-16 and 2016-17, from the Complainant does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and there is no flaw in the order which requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
The petition is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
VK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly rejected the accused's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summons for the complainant bank's IT returns for 2015-16 and 2016-17.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri G M Mallikarjuna
Sri K Kotresh
K.Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
