- 1 -

CRL.P No. 9496 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9496 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. A. DINAKAR RAI,

S/O A. SHEENAPPA RAI,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

RESIDING AT SABALOOR HOUSE,

KOILA POST AND VILLAGE,

PUTTUR TALUK,

D K DISTRICT-574241.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE BY S.H.O. BAJAPE P S,

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2.

SMT. PUSHPA,

W/O MANJUNATHA,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

RESIDING AT KOWDOOR,

KOLAMBE VILLAGE,

MANGALURU TALUK,

MANGALURU CITY,

D K DISTRICT – 574 142.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. ROHIT URS D, ADVOCATE FOR R2,

SMT.K.P YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1)

Digitally signed

by PADMAVATHI

B K

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 9496 of 2021

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO

QUASH

THE

ORDER

DATED

26.08.2021

PASSED

IN

C.C.NO.3068/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II-JMFC, MANGALORE

D.K., DISTRICT AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY HIM

UNDER SEC.91 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

an order dated 26.08.2021 passed in C.C.No.3068/2016

pending before the JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, whereby

the learned Magistrate rejects the application filed by the

petitioner under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking

summoning of certain documents.

2.

Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Tharanath

Shetty, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior

counsel,

Sri.

I.

Tharanath

Poojary,

appearing

for

respondent No.2 and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, the learned

HCGP appearing for respondent No.1.

- 3 -

CRL.P No. 9496 of 2021

3.

Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court

in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings,

are as follows:

A complaint is registered by the petitioner against

one Chandrahasa T. Ameen and his men before the

jurisdictional police in Crime No.57/2015 for offences

punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the IPC. The police after investigation have

filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.3567/2018 and the matter

is pending consideration. It is claimed on the next day, a

counter complaint is registered by the complainant against

the petitioner in Crime No.61/2015 for offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and the charge

sheet

is

filed

and

the

matter

is

pending

in

C.C.No.3068/2016. Merit or otherwise of both the charge

sheets is not the matter in the subject lis.

3.1. The complainant approaches this Court seeking

quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.3068/2016

registered

against

the

petitioner

by

the

present

- 4 -

CRL.P No. 9496 of 2021

complainant. This Court, by its order dated 11.12.2018,

dismissed the petition, permitted the petitioner to file an

application seeking discharge before the concerned Court.

On dismissal of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner on

06.06.2019, files an application under Section 91 of the

Cr.P.C. summoning certain documents in order to prefer a

discharge application before the concerned Court. The

concerned Court by its order dated 26.08.2021 rejects the

application holding that it was not the stage at which the

petitioner would be entitled to documents under Section

91 of the Cr.P.C. It is the rejection of the application filed

under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. that drives the petitioner

to this Court in the subject petition.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that, for filing an application seeking his

discharge from the array of accused or the allegations, it

was necessary for him to place those documents for the

perusal of th