IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3412 OF 2014 BETWEEN :
SRI N RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE NARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.2, MURUGAN TEMPLE STREET, BESIDE DURGHA AUTOMOBILES, BEHIND BHOJAN GUHA, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 075. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NANJA REDDY P N, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. SRI VENKATA REDDY SINCE DEAD 1A SMT. RUKMANAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.825 10TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.
1B SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.825, 19TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038.
1C SRI. V. SRIDHAR S/O LATE VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 825, 10TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 4. SMT. VEENA V D/O LATE VENKAREDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.C-102, KPVVD QUARTERS JEEVANABHIMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 075 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: U SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.2.2014 ON RECONSTRUCTION OF RECORDS AND DE-NOVO TRIAL FOR PROCEEDING THE CASE IN C.C.NO.27260/2010 ON THE FILE OF XIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY AND THEREBY TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.27260/2010 THEREIN.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2014 whereby the learned Magistrate has held that the evidence recorded by his predecessor in office could be relied on in terms of Section 326 of Cr.P.C.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of the original cheques, the complainant could not have been permitted to proceed with the case, yet, the records indicate that the original cheques were produced along with the complaint which were marked in the examination-in-chief of PW.1 and the same were later returned to the complainant.
3. Whether the complainant is able to prove his case without the primary evidence is a matter for consideration of the trial Court. As the parties have let in their evidence and the matter is set down for arguments of the accused, it is appropriate to await the findings of the trial Court on the disputed contentions raised by the parties.
Hence, keeping open all the contentions urged by the respective parties, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AKC