Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad Vs Mallikarjuna Swamy

LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD S/O D. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT P.W.D. 'B' BLOCK, WEST COURT ROAD, III CROSS, NEAR V.H.P. SCHOOL, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S/O LATE VEERANNA AGE: MAJOR R/AT BASADIGUDI BEEDI, PARVATHI NILAYA, 'D' NO 8/164-A, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13^TH FEBRUARY, 2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.30716/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:3185 CRL.P NO.4906 OF 2024 C/W CRL.P NO.4768 OF 2024

¶23

IN CRL.P No. 4768/2024

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRASAD S/O D. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT P.W.D. 'B' BLOCK, WEST COURT ROAD, III CROSS, NEAR V.H.P. SCHOOL, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S/O LATE VEERANNA AGE: MAJOR R/AT BASADIGUDI BEEDI, PARVATHI NILAYA, 'D' NO 8/164-A, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶30

…RESPONDENT

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13^TH FEBRUARY, 2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.30716/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR RECALLING THE PW1 AND PERMIT TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE.

¶32

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Both these petitions are preferred by the complainant against

¶35

the order dated 13^th February, 2024 passed by the XIII Additional

¶36

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. No.30716/2022, wherein the

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3185 CRL.P NO.4906 OF 2024 C/W CRL.P NO.4768 OF 2024

¶38

applications filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of additional documents and Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling PW1 to adduce further evidence came to be rejected.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶40

A perusal of material on record will indicate that the petitioner-complainant instituted the aforesaid proceedings against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶41

Both petitioner-complainant and the respondent-accused having completed their oral and documentary evidence, the matter was posted for arguments, at which stage, the petitionercomplainant filed two applications viz., under Sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of additional documents and to recall the PW1 to adduce further evidence respectively. The learned Magistrate, by impugned order dated 03^rd February, 2024, rejected both the applications. Being aggrieved by rejection of the aforesaid applications, the petitioner-

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3185 CRL.P NO.4906 OF 2024 C/W CRL.P NO.4768 OF 2024

¶43

complainant preferred these petitions seeking interference of this Court.

¶44

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, apart from the fact that the further evidence sought to be adduced by the petitioner is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties, the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to adduce the said evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.

¶45

Under these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner-complainant, I deem it appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and set-aside the order impugned in both the petitions and consequently, to allow both applications filed by the petitioner with a direction to the petitionercomplainant to complete his further evidence on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court.

¶46

In the result, I pass the following:

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

1. Criminal Petition Nos.4906/2024 and 4768/2024 are allowed;

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:3185 CRL.P NO.4906 OF 2024 C/W

¶51

CRL.P NO.4768 OF 2024

¶52

1. Orders dated 13^th February, 2024 passed in C.C. No.30716/2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, rejecting the applications filed under Sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby set-aside. Consequently, both the applications filed under Section 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are allowed.

¶53

1. The petitioner-complainant is directed to complete his further evidence as sought for in the applications as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

SD/(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad v. Mallikarjuna Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad v. Mallikarjuna Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manjunath K R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka

A M Manjunatha Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Bhagwan Singh M R Vs State by Kumbalgodu Ps

Sri. Antony Konnel Sebastian, Vs the State of Karnataka

Poovanna @ M. a. Poovanna Vs the State of Karnataka