IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7224 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. MADANLAL S/O D.M. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.6/F-72, KALASIPALYAM MAIN ROAD, NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560002 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: CHANDRA MOHAN J G, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. V. SHRUTHI W/O M PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.71, JANASI, SECOND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, ITI LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI, BANGALORE-560039 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: G.JAIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XVI ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9747/2014 IN REJECTING THE I.A. U/S 311 OF CRPC DATED 05.05.2016 ALLOW THE APPLICATION.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.9747/2014 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. In a proceeding arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, after closure of the evidence of the complainant, at the stage of section 313 examination of the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/accused moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to issue hand summons to the Branch Manager/Authorized Officer of the Kotak Mahindra Bank, K.R.Road Branch, Bengaluru to produce statement relating to the S.B. Account No.216010090801 standing in the name of the complainant. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the petitioner/accused failed to produce any convincing material to show by way of bank challan or any other document for having deposited the amount to the bank account of the complainant. The revision preferred by the petitioner is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document sought for by the petitioner is essential for fair decision in the case and therefore, rejection of the application by the learned Magistrate has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order.
5. On going through the material on record, it is seen that the dispute between the parties has arisen on account of dishonour of cheque issued by the petitioner/accused. It is borne on record that on receipt of intimation of dishonour, the complainant issued a notice as required under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, calling upon the petitioner to repay the cheque amount. The petitioner though acknowledged the notice, has failed to issue any reply thereto putting forth a plea that over the period of time, he has repaid the amount in installments to the complainant by crediting the same to the S.B. Account of the complainant. In the application, he has not averred the dates on which he has made the part payment and credited the same to the bank account of the complainant. As the petitioner did not set up any defence based on the Bank statement, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application. The application appears to have been filed by the petitioner in an attempt to make a roving enquiry which also cannot be permitted. Therefore, I do not find any reason to allow the petition.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss