- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4736 CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANGALA W/O. SRI. ARUN @ ARUNPRASAD HUTAGI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 125, GROUND FLOOR NISARGA LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS MUDDINAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ARUN @ ARUN PRASAD HUTAGI S/O. SRI. ANDAPPA HUTAGI, MAJOR, MANAGER, TCS NET APP, 2ND FLOOR, FAIR WINDS BLOCK, EMBASSY GOLF LINKS, BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560 095 PERMANENT ADDRESS AT MATRUPUNYA, BESIDE KANNADA SAHITYA PARISHAT JAYANAGAR, BADAMI TALUK AND DISTRICT BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4736 CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S. 438 R/W. 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT BENGALURU AND SUMMON THE RESPONDENT COMPANY ASKING THE DETAILS OF RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C vide order dated 18.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.95/2016 and also dismissal of the Crl.A.No.1194/2023 vide order dated 05.09.2024 on the file of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- 64) at Bengaluru. 3. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.95/2016 under section 12 of D.V.Act along with other relief and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4736 CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2024 interim maintenance was awarded and now the case is at the urge of disposal. When the respondent come up with a due documents of resignation and acceptance and the same has been disputed and hence an application is filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C wherein to summon the relevant letter along with details of the documents and from T.C.S company name of the employee Sri.Prasad @ Arun Prasad Hutagi who is the respondent from the Human Resource department and the said application was dismissed on the ground that this is the case of the year 2016 and now the case is posted of argument and at this stage an application is filed. An observation is made that respondent has already furnished the copy of the resignation and acceptance letter and no need to summon the details. When the revision petitioner disputed regarding resignation and author of the document has to be examined before the Court in order to prove the same, mere placing of resignation of letter and acceptance letter is not enough and the same is also not placed on record and exhibited before the Trial Court and unless the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4736 CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2024 document is exhibited and author of the document is examined, the Trial Court also cannot give finding on that and no doubt it is the matter of the year 2016 and matter is pending from long time and the same cannot be a ground to reject the application. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application. 4. The counsel appearing for respondent would submits that already produced the document he is going to mark those document and hence respondent is also directed to make necessary application for seeking permission to mark those documents before the Trial Court and after marking the documents, summon the author of the document or concerned officers from the concerned department to prove the same. An opportunity may be given to the petitioner as well as respondent to adduce evidence on the document of resignation and acceptance and this process must be done within one month from next date of hearing. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4736 CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2024 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the document of salary certificate of the petitioner is also summoned by filing an application under Section 91 and the same was allowed which is the part of the record before the Trial Court. 6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is not disputing the fact that she is employed and not disputing her employment and salary certificate and hence same could be marked with consent before the Trial Court. Hence, order impugned by the Trial Court is set-aside and directed to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence as observed above. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30