##PAGE1##

C N R : KAHC0100 07202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 363 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

VENU GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O LATE K.G GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT C002, PURVA WESTEND, KUDLA GATE SIGNAL, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560 068 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S KULKARNI FOR SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Dig itally VIVEK KATOCH signed by S/O UNKNOWN PANKAJA S AGED ABOUT MAJOR Location: RESIDING AT E909, HIGH PURVA WESTEND KUDLA COURT OF GATE SIGNAL, HOSUR ROAD KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 068 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH M, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN PCR NO.15392/2022 C N R : KAHC0100 07202024 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S

91 OF CR.P.C., 1973 (ANNEXURE-A1) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in PCR No.15392/2022 by the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed. The said order was affirmed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) (for short, ‘the Revisional Court’) in Crl.RP.No.5/2023 vide order dated 15.06.2023.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498 of IPC, alleging that the respondent had enticed his wife to fulfill his sexual desires and thereafter continued the relationship with her. In order to C N R : KAHC0100 07202024 ascertain the factual aspects pleaded in the private complaint, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., seeking summoning of the call records and tower locations pertaining to mobile Nos.9008988107, 9741036000 and 9353147548, for the period from 01.01.2021 till submission of the records before the Court. The said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Crl.RP.No.5/2023 before the Revisional Court.

3. Upon re-appreciation of the material on record, the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision petition, confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the petitioner has lodged a private complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498 of C N R : KAHC0100 07202024 IPC, seeking to take cognizance of the said offence and punish the respondent-accused, alleging that the respondent had enticed the petitioner’s wife, had sexual intercourse with her and continued such relationship. It is contended that, in order to substantiate the said accusation, the petitioner principally relies upon the mobile conversations, call details and tower locations to establish that the respondent and the petitioner’s wife were together and were maintaining a sexual relationship. Therefore, in order to secure the relevant call details and tower locations, the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to seek production of the same by filing an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

6. He further contended that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the application solely on the ground that allowing the same would