- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9629 CRL.P No. 7008 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7008 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. DR. ARUN K SON OF SRI K P KARUPANAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.293-A LAKSHMIPURAM, 1ST FLOOR PALANI, TAMIL NADU-624 601. 2. SRI KARUPPANNAN SON OF LATE SRI PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.D-204 DAKSHIN HOMES, KANNAPA NAGAR COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641 027. 3. SMT. REVATHI RATHAN DAUGHTER OF SRI KARUPANAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.D-204 DAKSHIN HOMES, KANNAPA NAGAR COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641027. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RANJITH GOTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY BELLANDUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HCK BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9629 CRL.P No. 7008 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S 91 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C. NO.16089/2018 IN C.C.NO.16089/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 41ST ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Trial Court. The order in question pertains to the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.PC, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The de facto complainant filed a complaint alleging that while she was in her matrimonial home, accused No.1 (her husband), accused No.2 (her father-in-law), and accused No.3 (her sister-in-law) subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. The petitioners subsequently filed an application seeking to summon the complainant’s medical records from Apollo Hospital, Chennai, asserting that there was no specific allegation against accused Nos.1 to 3. However, their application was rejected. The petitioners contended that, during her examination-in-chief, PW1 produced a discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Chennai, as evidence that she had received treatment for injuries allegedly caused by the accused. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9629 CRL.P No. 7008 of 2024 3. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, it is evident that the discharge summary was marked as Ex.P5. The petitioners argued that Ex.P5 was issued following the guidelines of the competent authority and that the complainant’s original complaint contained no allegations that accused No.1 had assaulted her, necessitating medical treatment in Chennai. They further alleged that the document was fabricated and, accordingly, filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.PC to summon the original medical records from Apollo Hospital, Chennai. 4. A perusal of the medical document indicates that there is no reference to an assault by accused No.1 while the complainant was in her matrimonial home. Furthermore, there is no mention of her traveling to Chennai for treatment as a result of such an assault. Additionally, the complainant has filed a petition in OP No.4201/2021 seeking the dissolution of her marriage with accused No.1. In those proceedings, she produced a discharge summary allegedly issued by Apollo Hospital, Chennai, which consists of four pages. However, Ex.P5, as produced in the present case, contains only one page. Notably, the name and address of the hospital are not visible on Ex.P5. 5. The petitioners assert that summoning the original medical records is necessary to establish that the complainant has produced a fabricated discharge summary solely to falsely implicate the accused. The requested documents are crucial to ensuring a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Given these circumstances, the petitioners - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9629 CRL.P No. 7008 of 2024 have established a prima facie case for summoning the documents sought in their application under Section 91 of the Cr.PC. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2023, passed on the application in CC No.16089/2018 by the learned 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed. Additionally, the order dated 15.07.2024, passed in Crl.RP No.242/2023 by the learned LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-72, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.PC is allowed. 7. The Trial Court is directed to summon the medical records of PW1, Mrs. Gayathri Devi, from Apollo Hospital, Chennai, in CC No.16089/2018. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 112