IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2582 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
JAYARAM RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O GOPALAKRISHNA RAO R/AT ALKERU HOUSE IRA POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK-574 231 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
VINOD KUMAR S/O SRINIVAS R/AT JAI GURUDEV BHATRAKUMERU PADAVINANGADY POST KONCHADY MANGALORE-574 008 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2012 AND 13.07.2012 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-V, MANGALORE IN C.C.NO.257/2008 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 AND 91 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DATED 26.09.2011 AND 25.06.2012 (ANNEXURE-C AND D).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Nataraj Ballal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.B. Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned Magistrate contending inter alia that he had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. Cheque in question, issued by the petitioner to discharge the said liability was dishonoured. Accused disowned receipt of any money. Complainant was cross-examined by learned advocate for the accused. An application was moved by the accused on 26.09.2011 under Section 311 read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the complainant to produce bank particulars and pass book for the years 2003 to 2007. Subsequently, accused moved another application on 25.06.2012 with a prayer to recall PW2.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that complainant has stated in examination-in-chief that out of Rs.5,00,000/-, which he claims to have paid to the accused, he has drawn Rs.1,08,000/- & Rs.38,000/- from his bank account and Rs.70,000/- from the bank account of his friend namely Varadaraja Bhat – PW.2. But he has not produced any documents to prove those transactions. Therefore, application was moved on 26.09.2011 seeking a direction to the complainant to produce his pass book. He further submits that PW.2 was partly cross-examined. An application dated 25.06.2012 was moved for further cross-examination of PW2 with regard to amount of Rs.70,000/-, which he claimed to have drawn from the bank.
4. Learned Magistrate has recorded that the learned advocate on behalf of the accused has cross-examined the complainant with regard to the source of money and complainant has answered stating that he did not have any documents. He has further recorded that no reasons are forthcoming in the application as to why accused had sought for production of bank documents and accordingly rejected those applications by order dated 12.06.2012. Feeling aggrieved, accused challenged the said order before the learned Sessions Judge, Mangalore. Following the decision in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam1, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that both complainant-PW.1 and his friend Varadaraju-PW.2 were cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. Prayer made in the applications is to direct complainant to produce bank documents and also to recall PW.2 as the accused has completely denied the transactions and for further examination of PW.2.
8. Complainant, who has initiated the prosecution has been examined. His friend, who is said to have drawn a sum of Rs.70,000/- has also been examined as PW.2. Both witnesses were exposed to cross-examination in the hands of learned advocate for the accused.
1 2009 (2) Crimes 1 (SC) 9. It is settled that the accused cannot compel the complainant to lead the case in a particular manner. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate as also by the learned Sessions Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV