An appeal against an order passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. lies to the court to which the subordinate civil court is hierarchically accountable, typically the Principal District Court, rather than the High Court; furthermore, notice to the alleged contemnor is not mandatory during the preliminary inquiry stage.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH CAUSE IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 13.12.2024 , ANNEXURE-A MADE IN FR MISC 91/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DIST JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DIST BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 13.12.2024 , ANNEXURE- A. MADE IN FR MISC 91/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DIST JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW FR MISC 91/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

1. The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 13.12.2024 made in FR No.Misc.91/2024 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, wherein the Court below has declined to entertain the appeal filed under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. on the premise that the petitioner has a remedy by way of an appeal before this Court and therefore, the appeal filed under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the present case on hand relates to the allegations attributed against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that they induced the appellant herein to invest the scheme framed by respondent No.1 for purchase, conversion and development of agricultural land at Bengaluru. The present appellant alleged that he transferred USD 90,000/- to the ICICI NRE Bank account of respondent No.3 at Hyderabad. Appellant also claims that respondent No.2 later transferred amount to the account of one Gopinath Naidu who is the vendor of the suit schedule property and that the suit lands were purchased in the name of respondent No.2 in the capacity of trustee of appellant herein. While respondent No.3 initiated divorce proceedings against the appellant in Texas Family Court and decree was granted by the Texas Family Court, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.1091/2021 seeking recovery of money. The appellant during the course of trial issued a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC to the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent and his wife, who are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 for production of in all 8 documents including income tax returns. The appellant alleges that defendants in response to the notice chose to produce a few documents which were marked at Exs.D-9 to D-16. The appellant alleges that the affidavits to which respondent has sworn are faraway from the truth and therefore, this prompted the petitioner in lodging a complaint under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. Petitioner's primary grievance is that the learned Judge while deciding the civil suit did not advert to the application filed under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C., while the suit came to be disposed of. It is in this backdrop, the appellant herein approached the Principal District Court by filing an appeal under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the premise that appellant has a remedy of appeal before this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the judgment relied by the petitioner's counsel rendered in the case of Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another^{1(1956) 1 SCC 185} and also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh ^{2Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2020}. The following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the finding of the Court below that petitioner herein has to avail a remedy of appeal