Udya S/O. Shripal Upadya Vs the State of Karnataka

KOTRESH S/O. BASAPPA TOTAGAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. SHRISHAILESHWAR TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMPUR ROAD, GANGAVATI, TQ. ISLAMPUR, DIST. KOPPAL-58323.

¶17

SHOBHA BASAPPA TOTAGAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. SHRISHAILESHWAR TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMPUR ROAD, GANGAVATI, TQ. ISLAMPUR, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC-D:219 CRL.P No. 104634 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BASAPPA SHIVAPPA TOTAGAR

¶22

AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. SHRISHAILESHWAR TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMPUR ROAD, GANGAVATI, TQ. ISLAMPUR, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. ATHANI BELAGAVI DATED 02.11.2023, ON IA NO. II FILED BY THE PROSECUTION U/SEC. 91 OF CR.P.C. IN CC NO 1742/2020, AND ETC.,.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶29

Heard Sri. M. C. Hukkeri, learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶31

The petitioner herein is the advocate who had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ against respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein.

¶32

1 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:219 CRL.P No. 104634 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶37

The petitioner alleges that in respect of the transfer of the vehicle there are serious disputes and that

¶38

fraud has been committed. The vehicle in question, which was the subject matter of the sale, was sought to be summoned before the Court, however, the said request was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the following prayer:

¶40

“Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be allowed this criminal petition by calling lower court records and may please,

¶41

A. to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, Belagavi on I.A.No.II dated 02.11.2023 filed by the prosecution under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1742/2020 and,

¶42

B. To pass any other orders, directions as deems fit and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC-D:219 CRL.P No. 104634 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the vehicle is produced before the Court and photographs of the vehicle are taken from different angles, the same would facilitate effective and proper adjudication of the pending criminal case. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4 supports the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶48

Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the impugned order. It is evident that the petitioner is seeking production of the vehicle in question before the Court for the purpose of taking photographs thereof, so as to facilitate proper adjudication of the criminal case.

¶49

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 being in possession of the said vehicle, are bound to produce the same before the Court and photographs of the vehicle can be taken from different angles and placed the same on record, so as to facilitate effective and proper adjudication of the case.

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:219 CRL.P No. 104634 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Therefore, the approach of the Trial Court in rejecting the application is incorrect and calls interference by this Court by exercising the inherent jurisdiction.

¶54

Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶57

(ii) Consequently, the impugned order

¶58

dated 30.09.2025 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under

¶59

Section 91 of Cr.P.C., is allowed in part.

¶60

(iii) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are

¶61

directed to produce the vehicle bearing No.KA-23/EC-1087 positively on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court.

¶62

(iv) The Trial Court shall permit the

¶63

parties to take the photographs of the said vehicle from different angles and thereafter, return the vehicle to the custody of respondent Nos.2 to 4 with a direction to

¶64