SRI. CHANDRAPPA AMBIGER, S/O PUTTAPPA AMBIGER, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 2^ND MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 058.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA.R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. APPARAO S. NAVALE, S/O LATE SRIPADA RAO A NAVALE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.453/B, 4^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAY-OUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2^ND STAGE, 9^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 072.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.N.SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THE ABOVE THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXI ACMM AT BENGALURU IN IA FILED U/S.91 OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.24668/2019.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5404 CRL.P No. 869 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order for having dismissed the application filed by him under Sections 311 and 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of certain documents and summoning the witness.

¶22

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w 138 of NI Act for dishonour of cheque issued by this petitioner. The plea was recorded. Subsequent to the complainant examined as PW.1, he has marked some documents and after the crossexamination, 313 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded, posted the matter for defence evidence. The petitioner himself examined as DW.1 and marked some documents. Thereafter the arguments of the complainant has been heard and the matter was posted for arguments of the defence counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed application under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for summoning one Lokesh and for production of some

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5404 CRL.P No. 869 of 2024

¶25

documents, which was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those documents are very much necessary for deciding the issue and the cheque was issued to the said Lokesh and from him, the cheque was taken by the complainant and filed false complaint. Therefore, the said witness is necessary to adjudicate the matter. The documents are necessary for the petitioner to produce the same for adjudication. Therefore, he prays for allowing the same.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent objected the petition and contend that there is no such defence taken by the petitioner in the 313 Cr.P.C. statement as well as in his evidence and in the cross-examination, he himself admitted that there is no connection between him and Lokesh, who is said to be Government employee and also contended that in the list of witness, his name was not found and there is no reply to 313 Cr.P.C statement. Therefore, he prays for dismissing the petition.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5404 CRL.P No. 869 of 2024

¶30

Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner has not stated anything about the defence taken in 313 Cr.P.C. statement stating that this cheque was issued to Lokesh and not to this complainant. He has also not produced any document along with 313 Cr.P.C. statement and list of witness to summoning the witness as per Section 243 of Cr.P.C. and after cross-examination of DW.1 and after hearing final arguments of the complainant's counsel and when the matter is posted for the arguments of the defence's side, this application came to be filed. It is a belated stage where the no defence set up by the petitioner after 313 Cr.P.C. statement recorded and also production of list of witnesses. Of course, the presumption required to be rebutted by the petitioner which is availed by the complainant under Section 139 of NI Act but, the defence should be set up by him from the beginning while replying to the legal notice issued by the complainant, thereafter in the cross-examination of PW.1 and hence, 313 Cr.P.C. statement and thereafter in his evidence. Nothing has been mentioned in his application. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner has

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:5404 CRL.P No. 869 of 2024

¶32

¶33

not made a case for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. Chandrappa Ambiger v. Sri. Apparao S. Navale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sri. Chandrappa Ambiger v. Sri. Apparao S. Navale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala B Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. K. Gowri Vs Mohan K.L.

Y H Prathap Reddy @ Y H Prathap Vs M/S Vijayas Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Satish K, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chidanandamurthy Ts Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lingarajan J M Vs State by Yelahanahanka Police Station