IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15463 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

ANIL KUMAR.M.P

S/O PUTTAMADAIAH

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

R/AT NO.60, 1ST C MAIN ROAD,

3RD CROSS, NEAR BANDE MATT ROAD,

BANGALORE SOUTH,

BANGALORE- 560 060

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

NAVEEN KUMAR.S

S/O GANGANNA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

Digitally

signed by R/AT NO.34/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

LAKSHMI T

Location: ATTUR, YELAHANKA,

High Court

of Karnataka BANGALORE- 560 064

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. N H SATHYANARAYANA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 23.07.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XVIII ACJM, AT BANGALORE CITY IN CC.NO.17351/2019 ON APPLICATION U/S 91 OF CR.P.C FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ALLOW THE I.A FILED BY THE

PETITIONER U/S 91 OF CR.P.C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Rejection of the application filed by the accused under Section – 91 of the Cr.P.C., in a proceeding initiated by the respondent – complainant for the offence punishable under Section - 138 of NI Act is called in question in this petition.

2. Application is filed seeking to direct the complainant to produce his bank statement from 01.09.2017 to 31.12.2017. The learned Magistrate vide impugned order has dismissed the said application.

3. The matter pertains to a Cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the respondent/ complainant, which came to be dishonored for ‘insufficiency of the funds’ in the account. As per the complainant, the accused approached him expressing financial difficulties and to provide him financial assistance in order to improve his real estate business. Since the Cheque amount was not paid inspite of issuance of notice, a complaint was filed on 31.07.2019.

4. The material on record, shows that the cross examination of PW-1 was conducted on 21.09.2022 partly and he was fully cross examined on 29.11.2022. The application under Section–91 of Cr.P.C. was filed on

24.10.2024.

5. As per the statement of objections filed by the complainant, since the Bank was merged he could not get the full bank statement.

6. The learned Magistrate while dismissing the application has observed that the bank statement sought by the accused was not in the custody of the complainant, as the Bank was merged and therefore, again seeking a direction to produce the said bank statement does not arise.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the burden is upon the complainant to establish his case and the learned Magistrate while dismissing the application has observed that if the complainant failed to produce the documents, the Court can take adverse inference under Section–114 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the accused has no right to compel the complainant to produce any document. There is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Obviously, the application is filed when the matter was set-down for arguments. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. *Criminal petition is dismissed.

Pending IAs 1 and 2 of 2025 are disposed of.

Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 * Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 16.12.2025.