IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA BETWEEN:
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9360/2016 SRI. SYED MUSHEER AHMED B.G. S/O SRI SYED BASHER AHAMED, R/AT 14/4, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, OPP: MARGOSA ENGLISH SCHOOL, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU- 560 029. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY DAYANAND NAIK, ADV.) AND:
SRI. K. MANOHARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAREDDY, R/AT No.57/3-15, G.S.PALYA MAIN ROAD, KONAPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU- 560 100. ... RESPONDENT (By SRI. K.V. PRAKASH, ADV. – ABSENT ) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED IN C.C.No.8238/2015 ON THE FILE OF XII ACMM, BENGALURU CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-‘A’ ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The learned counsel for respondent is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru on an application filed by him under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
3. In a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“the N. I. Act”, for short), the petitioner/accused moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Chamarajpet Branch, Bangalore-18, to produce documents containing details of account number 54056054846 standing in their Branch on 07.02.2015 i.e., name and address of the account holder and other necessary particulars relating to the said account. The said application is rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that signature found in the cheque and signature of the petitioner on the ‘On Demand Promissory Note’ and consideration receipt were similar.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has taken up specific defence before the trial court that cheque in question was not issued by him and he does not maintain any account in State Bank of Mysore, Chamarajpet Branch much less an account bearing number 54056054846 and hence the documents sought for by the petitioner had direct bearing on the controversy seized by the trial court.
5. In view of the above plea, in my opinion, the documents called for by the petitioner are necessary for fair decision in the matter. Hence, the rejection of application by the learned Magistrate is improper and has resulted in failure of justice inasmuch as the petitioner is denied an opportunity to substantiate his defence.
6. For the above reason, the petition is allowed.
The order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 28.11.2016 in C.C.No.8238/2015 is quashed. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The trial court shall issue summons as prayed for in the application.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE