In a summary trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused cannot seek the production of the complainant's bank records under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge financial capacity if the cheque issuance and signature are admitted, as this would derail the summary nature of proceedings.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 17.01.2025 IN C.C.NO.2213/2021 BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDURU, REJECTING THE IA FILED 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 M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner – accused is before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madduru, rejecting the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the Manager, Karnataka Bank to produce the account extract of the bank account of the complainant, for the period from 10.06.2020 to 26.02.2021.

2. Heard Sri K.L.Sreenivas, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Hariprasad M.B., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Divya Purandar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the accused, the respondent, the complainant. The two have a transaction and the transaction goes wrong. The instrument involved in the transaction is a cheque of ₹5,00,000/-. When the cheque is presented, the bank dishonor’s the cheque for want of sufficient funds. Respondent No.1 issues a legal notice calling upon the petitioner to repay the debt. Non-payment of the debt, leads the complainant to initiate proceedings before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

4. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner - accused files an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Manager of the Karnataka Bank, to produce the account extract of the complainant’s bank account for the purpose of examination. The concerned Court rejects the application and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the application and the petition to contend that the examination of the Manager of the Karnataka Bank or the production of the bank account details of the complainant, is imperative as respondent No.1 did not have the capacity to lend ₹5,00,000/-.

6. The concerned Court by the following order dated 17.01.2025, has rejected the application. It reads as follows:

“Order on application U/Sec 91 of Cr.P.C.

The Accused has filed this application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for directing the complainant to produce account extract of Karnataka Bank, Madduru branch from 10/6/2020 to 26/2/2021 of complainant.

2. The complainant filed objection on application and contended that, the application filed by the accused is not maintainable. The accused has not assigned valid reason in the application and filed this application only to drag on the proceedings. Accordingly among other grounds prays to dismiss the application.

3. Heard and perused the records.

4. The Accused has filed this application under Section 91 of Cr.PC for directing the complainant to produce account extract of Karnataka bank Madduru branch from 10/6/2020 to 26/2/2021 of complainant. The alleged document which is mentioned in the application has not necessary to disprove the complainant's case as under Sec. 138 of NI act. The presumptive value must be rebut firstly by the accused, then its burden shifted to the complainant. Moreover, it is burden of complainant to produce and prove the same. Therefore, the question of directing the complainant to produce the account extract of Karnataka bank, Madduru branch f