IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6042 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI N V SHEKAR BABU S/O N.V.VISHWESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.106, MAHAVEER CARNET APARTMENTS, KENGERI UPANAGARA, NEAR BETHESDA CHURCH, BANGALORE-560 060.
(BY SRI: RAMESH N J, ADVOCATE) AND SMT SUMA W/O N.V.SHEKAR BABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 6TH CROSS, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: S.S.SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.8.2015 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.555/2011 BY THE M.M.T.C.-II, BANGALORE AND FURTHER ORDERED TO EXPUNGE THE RECORD, WHICH THE COURT IS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
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 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangaluru in Crl.Misc.No.555/2011 dated 18.08.2015, whereby the application filed by the respondent(wife) under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and summons has been issued to Abhaya Hospital to produce the documents sought for by the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for summoning the documents were not proper; the respondent did not make out justifiable ground to issue summons to the Hospital Authorities to produce the documents; the said order does not specify the person to whom summons had been issued; it is not clear as to who was required to produce the documents before the Court.
Under the said circumstances, impugned order has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order.
4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that at the stage of argument, the respondent/wife moved the above application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon certain documents from Abhaya Hospital. The records disclose that the respondent has taken up a specific plea before the trial court that the petitioner herein was addicted to alcohol and was admitted in Abhaya Hospital for De-addiction for a long period. The trial court having found that the said documents were relevant and necessary for resolution of the controversy seized by it, allowed the said application.
5. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order. The documents sought for by the respondent regarding the treatment of the petitioner in de-addiction centre are relevant documents. The admissibility of these documents could be considered only at the time of admitting them in evidence. As the records indicate that the said documents are relevant, no fault could be found with the Court directing summons to the Abhaya Hospital to produce the said documents. Hence, keeping open the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding proof and admissibility of the document to be urged at appropriate stage, petition is disposed of.
6. Learned counsel pleads that the cost imposed by the court is unjustified as the petitioner has not contributed for the delay; on the other hand, respondent herself moved the said application after closure of the evidence. Therefore, there was no justifiable reason to impose the cost. The submission of the learned counsel is well-founded. Respondent herself moved the application after closure of evidence, petitioner could not be blamed for the delay in disposal of the matter. Therefore, there was no justifiable reason to impose cost on the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part. The cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed on the petitioner by the trial court is set- aside. Rest of the order is confirmed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-