- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6879 CRL.P No. 1366 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1366 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: IMRAN SAYEED S/O MOHAMMED HIDYATHULLA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO 17, M H APARTMENTS 6TH CROSS, NANDI VIEW LAYOUT R T NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH – 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER S N.,ADVOCATE) AND: TATA CAPITAL FINANCE SERVICES LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 82/1, 2ND FLOOR, KRISHNA TOWER NEAR WAKF BOARD, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU – 560 024. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MADHU KUMAR SM …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2024 PASS IN C.C.NO.9111/2021 ON THE FILE OF XIX ASCJ AND ACJM SCCH-17, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6879 CRL.P No. 1366 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the accused in C.C.No.9111/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.12.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings, initiated by the respondent - complainant against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, respondent examined himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2 and documentary evidence was marked on his behalf. After completion of evidence of PW-2, petitioner filed the instant application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking direction to respondent to produce certain documents. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under: “The present application is filed under section 91 of the criminal procedure code by the accused by praying to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6879 CRL.P No. 1366 of 2025 Issue direction to the complainant to produce the documents submitted at the time of availing of loan by the accused, all ECS/PDC/ security documents submitted by the accused at the time of availing loan and the documents pertaining to arbitration proceedings. 2. In the application it is submitted that the complainant has filed the false case and also initiated arbitration proceedings. In the cross examination the Pw.2 has admitted that they have received the cheques and other documents at the time of sanctioning of loan. Hence, prays to allow the application as the no prejudice is going to be caused to the complainant by allowing the application and directing the complainant produce the said documents. 3. To the said application the complainant filed objection by contending that, the application is not maintainable either on law or on facts and submitted that the application is filed to protract the proceedings. The documents sought by the accused is already in possession of accused at the time of loan and no reasons are made out in the application for the direction to the production of the documents. The accused has all the details in respect of arbitration proceedings. The application is vague. Hence, prays to dismiss the application. 4. Heard the arguments of accused and complainant. 5. The point that arise for my consideration is: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6879 CRL.P No. 1366 of 2025 Whether the accused made out sufficient grounds to allow the application and thereby directing the complainant to produce the documents as sought in the IA.? 6. My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following reasons. REASONS 7. The present complainant filed by alleging the commission of offense punishable under section 138 of NI Act against accused, on the basis of cheque in question vide cheque. No.000049, dated 15.02.2021, for 4,80,384/- drawn on HDFC bank, CMH road Branch, Bangalore. 8. Admittedly the case is of the year 2021. Further admittedly the burden is on the complainant to prove the commission of the alleged offence on beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving his case is on the complainant. In this case on perusal of the defence taken by the accused at the time of cross examination. The borrowing of loan is not in dispute. The execution of the loan documents is also not disputed by the accused. It is the burden on the complainant company to prove its case. The complainant has to produce relevant documents and evidence in support of its case. In case of non production of any documents by either of the parties it is the fatal to the case and defence. Hence, giving direction to the party to produce any documents in support of their case is not arises at the time of trial. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6879 CRL.P No. 1366 of 2025 9. Further the present case is filed by alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of NI act on the basis of cheque. The filing of the present case will not bar the complainant to initiate the other civil proceedings and also arbitration proceedings for the recovery of the alleged amount. If the direction is issued by the allowing the application No representation from purpose will be served as the accused not disputed the borrowing of loan and execution of loan documents. Hence, no grounds are made out by the accused to issue direction as sought in the IA to the complainant. Whether the complainant has produced relevant evidence to prove their case or not can be looked in to at the time of final adjudication of the case. Hence, no grounds are made out to allow the application. Accordingly, by answering the point for consideration in the negative, proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code is hereby dismissed. For statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C by 07.01.2025.” 4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to be suffered from any illegality or infirmity - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6879 CRL.P No. 1366 of 2025 nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to adduce oral and documentary evidence and all rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95