- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17816 CRL.P No. 5736 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2025 BETWEEN: UMA, D/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 7TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SUBBANNA GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B N., ADVOCATE) AND: E. SRINIVASULU, S/O NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.46/5, HSR LAYOUT, 7TH SECTOR, 12TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 102. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2025) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED BY THE XIX ACJM IN CC.NO.19227/2019 AT (ANNEXURE-A). b) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 311 OF CR.P.C. FILED ON 10.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17816 CRL.P No. 5736 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Service of notice to the respondent is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner, who is presently facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking permission to summon certain documents was rejected. 3. The petitioner submits that a departmental enquiry was initiated against both himself and the respondent- complainant on similar allegations. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report finding that the charge of misconduct was proved against both the petitioner and the complainant. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon documents from the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17816 CRL.P No. 5736 of 2025 However, the said application was dismissed as “not pressed.” Subsequently, the petitioner independently procured the relevant documents from BMTC and thereafter filed an application seeking permission to mark those documents during the course of trial. 5. The complainant has submitted that he has no objection to the said application being allowed. 6. The petitioner contends that the documents sought to be marked are essential to establish that the cheque in question—allegedly issued by the petitioner/accused—was in fact given as a security towards repayment of a loan availed by a third party. He argues that the documents will substantiate his defence and are, therefore, crucial for a fair adjudication of the matter. 7. In view of the above and considering the fact that the complainant has raised no objection, this Court is of the opinion that the documents in question are relevant for the just decision of the case. ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17816 CRL.P No. 5736 of 2025 ii. The impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the XIX ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.19227/2019 is hereby setaside and the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C is allowed. iii. The Trial Court to permit the petitioner to mark the documents as enumerated in the application, in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79