In a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act, the accused sought a direction to the complainant to produce share-related documents via Section 91 Cr.P.C., which the Magistrate rejected. The High Court held such invocation is impermissible at the prosecution-evidence stage 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.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8639 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.M. KUMAR, S/O GANGADARAPPA MUNIDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO. 68, 5TH CROSS, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, SHIVANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. EX. MANAGING DIRECTOR, EAGLE SIGHT MEDIA PVT. LTD.,
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
SRI. ASHWIN MAHENDRA, S/O B MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 301/10, 36TH CROSS, 7TH C MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.R. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE XXII A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.4842/2019
HC-KAR
DATED 23.05.2025 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILLED UNDER SEC.91 OF CR.PC DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE SHARE CERTIFICATE, MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING AND SHARE ALLOTMENT LETTER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the accused assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
The respondent/complainant has instituted a private
complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the ‘N.I. Act’). In the complaint, it is specifically averred that due to certain disputes and differences between the petitioner/accused
HC-KAR
and the respondent/complainant, the latter made an offer to take over the company by purchasing her shareholdings and settling the liabilities of the creditors who had been introduced by her to the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:28869 CRL.P No. 8639 of 2025
HC-KAR
presented for encashment through her banker, Karnataka Bank Limited, Jayanagar 4th Block, Bengaluru, was dishonoured. The cheque return memo dated 25.10.2018 bore the endorsement “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER.”
The complainant states that a statutory notice dated 23.11.2018 was issued, and as the accused failed to comply, the present proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were initiated.
HC-KAR
respondent/complainant has stated that she does not possess the documents in question and that they are not in her custody.
HC-KAR
petitioner/accused. It is also pointed out that the escrow agent has been cited as a witness by the complainant. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415], learned counsel submits that the present application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., filed during the stage of cross-examination of the complainant, is premature and not legally maintainable.
HC-KAR
cheque, which was allegedly dishonoured upon presentation. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled, at this stage of trial when the complainant is under cross-examination to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents from the complainant.
HC-KAR
of defence evidence, and the right under Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not extend to summoning documents for cross-examining prosecution witnesses.
dismissed. All contentions are left open. Any pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an accused can invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. to direct the complainant to produce documents during cross-examination of the complainant in a Section 138 NI Act trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath PadhiFollowed¶11
[(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri G.M. Kumar
Sri Ashwin Mahendra
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
