- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3076 CRL.P No. 100454 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100454 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. PRASHANT RAMA LOHAR AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 4849, SHREENAGAR MACCHE, TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590014. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B.DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: JAYASHANKAR KALAKUNDRIKAR MULTI-PURPOSE SOUHARD SOCIETY LTD. BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SOMANATH BUILDING, OPPOSITE AMBABAI TEMPLE NEAR NATH PAI CIRCLE, SHAHAPUR BELAGAVI-590003, HAVING ITS BRANCH AT PEERNAWADI BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED MR. BHIMA S/O. MARUTI KAMBLE, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTITIONER, R/O. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2022 PASSED BY VIIITH JMFC BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO. 72/2021 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/SEC. 91 OF CR.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:21 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3076 CRL.P No. 100454 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’), has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the revisional Court. The said order rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for the production of documents listed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 17, and 19 to 25. 2. The complainant alleges that the subject cheque was issued towards the money misappropriated by the petitioner/accused while serving as Branch Manager. Both the trial Court and the revisional Court have held that the documents sought to be produced at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 17, and 19 to 25 pertain to the alleged misappropriation of money by the petitioner/accused and are not relevant to adjudicating the matter at hand, particularly since a trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is summary in nature. 3. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80