Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandrappa Ambiger vs Sri. Apparao S. Navale on 8 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5404
CRL.P No. 869 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 869 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRAPPA AMBIGER,
S/O PUTTAPPA AMBIGER,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19, 2ND MAIN,
5TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 058.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. APPARAO S. NAVALE,
S/O LATE SRIPADA RAO A NAVALE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/AT NO.453/B, 4TH MAIN,
by JUANITA 10TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAY-OUT,
THEJESWINI
NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 072.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.N.SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A.
ALLOW THE ABOVE THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED XXI ACMM AT BENGALURU IN IA FILED U/S.91
OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.24668/2019.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5404
CRL.P No. 869 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order for having
dismissed the application filed by him under Sections 311 and
91 of Cr.P.C. for production of certain documents and
summoning the witness.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused
the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent
filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w 138
of NI Act for dishonour of cheque issued by this petitioner. The
plea was recorded. Subsequent to the complainant examined as
PW.1, he has marked some documents and after the cross-
examination, 313 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded, posted the
matter for defence evidence. The petitioner himself examined
as DW.1 and marked some documents. Thereafter the
arguments of the complainant has been heard and the matter
was posted for arguments of the defence counsel. Learned
counsel for the petitioner filed application under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. for summoning one Lokesh and for production of some
NC: 2024:KHC:5404
documents, which was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
those documents are very much necessary for deciding the
issue and the cheque was issued to the said Lokesh and from
him, the cheque was taken by the complainant and filed false
complaint. Therefore, the said witness is necessary to
adjudicate the matter. The documents are necessary for the
petitioner to produce the same for adjudication. Therefore, he
prays for allowing the same.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
objected the petition and contend that there is no such defence
taken by the petitioner in the 313 Cr.P.C. statement as well as
in his evidence and in the cross-examination, he himself
admitted that there is no connection between him and Lokesh,
who is said to be Government employee and also contended
that in the list of witness, his name was not found and there is
no reply to 313 Cr.P.C statement. Therefore, he prays for
dismissing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:5404
6. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on
perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner has not
stated anything about the defence taken in 313 Cr.P.C.
statement stating that this cheque was issued to Lokesh and
not to this complainant. He has also not produced any
document along with 313 Cr.P.C. statement and list of witness
to summoning the witness as per Section 243 of Cr.P.C. and
after cross-examination of DW.1 and after hearing final
arguments of the complainant's counsel and when the matter is
posted for the arguments of the defence's side, this application
came to be filed. It is a belated stage where the no defence set
up by the petitioner after 313 Cr.P.C. statement recorded and
also production of list of witnesses. Of course, the presumption
required to be rebutted by the petitioner which is availed by the
complainant under Section 139 of NI Act but, the defence
should be set up by him from the beginning while replying to
the legal notice issued by the complainant, thereafter in the
cross-examination of PW.1 and hence, 313 Cr.P.C. statement
and thereafter in his evidence. Nothing has been mentioned in
his application. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner has
NC: 2024:KHC:5404
not made a case for setting aside the order passed by the Trial
Court in rejecting the application.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
