IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.885/2018 BETWEEN:
MR. T.M. SUNIL KUMAR S/O. MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COFFEE PLANTER R/O. KAITHOTA ESTATE MALLANDUR @ POST CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PULAKESHI A.P., ADV.) AND:
MR. G. SHANKAR S/O. GOVINDARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BUSINESS R/O. PADMALATHA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, PENSION MOHALLA, CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO [1] QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2017, PASSED IN C.C.NO.706/2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE ‘B’ [2] TO QUASH ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE ‘H’.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Order dated 22.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.706/2014 which is a proceeding arising out of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act is sought to be quashed in this criminal petition.
2. I have heard arguments of Sri.A.P.Pulakeshi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
3. Respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that cheque issued by the petitioner-accused has been returned ‘unpaid’ with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and as such, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. During the pendency of trial, two applications under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed to summon the original letter dated 06.02.2014 purported to have been issued by the Bank regarding missing of the cheque book, passbook and acknowledgment receipt in Sl.No.3269 dated 30.06.2009 from Aldur post office, Chickmagalur Taluk and District respectively.
4. Learned trail Judge after considering the rival contentions as well as objections filed to the said applications, by impugned order has rightly dismissed the aforesaid two applications for the reason indicated herein below.
5. As could be seen from the material on record, accused claimed that he had lodged a complaint with his Banker on 20.06.2014 about cheque book including the cheques in question having been lost and as such, he lodged a complaint with his Banker namely, Canara Bank. Neither the original endorsement issued by the Bank nor the complaint was produced. However, it was contended that since the said endorsement had been lost, accused had lodged the police complaint and to substantiate the said contention, accused did not produce any document in that regard and as such, trial Court has rightly rejected the said application.
6. Insofar as summoning of the document from Aldur post office, learned trial Judge has rightly opined that accused could have obtained certified copy of the same, if it is genuine for consideration and such exercise having not been undertaken and even otherwise the said document would have no bearing on the defence of the accused, and as such it has rightly rejected the application. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner-accused has not made out any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is rejected. It is made clear that order passed by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by this Court is for the limited purpose of considering the applications filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and trial Court shall not get influenced in any manner whatsoever while adjudicating the complaint on merits.
In view of dismissal of Criminal Petition on merits, I.A.1/18 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Srl.