- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3029 CRL.P No. 100737 of 2025 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. 100737 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BHASKAR G S/O. VENKATESH G AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SH.NO. 29, MEDARKATTAYYA NAGAR, BALLARI-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. SHARNABASAIAH AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. FOOD INSPECTOR BALLARI, BALLARI -583201, REP.BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.318/2022 (CRIME NO.163/2021 REGISTERED BY BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 13:15:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3029 CRL.P No. 100737 of 2025 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, which was subsequently affirmed by the revisional Court. By the said order, the petitioner’s application filed 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 was rejected. 2. The complainant alleges that the subject cheque was issued towards the amount 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 relate to the alleged misappropriation of money by the petitioner/accused and are not relevant to the adjudication of the present case, 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 JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55