- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR WRIT PETITION NO.101913 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. JAI BALAJI ENERPRISES, SHOP AT 234/1A/2, NEAR ANCHATGERI, KARWAR ROAD, BUDDHNAL HUBBALLI – 580 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. 2. SHRI. CHANDRAKATH S/O. VISHWANATHSA HABIB, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PARTNER OF JAI BALAJI ENTERPRISES. 3. SHRI. SURAJ S/O. CHANDRAKANTH HABIB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PARTNER OF JAI BALAJI ENTERPRISES. BOTH PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 R/AT: 386, 1ST FLOOR, KOTILINGA NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH P. HANAMARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. MOHIT S/O. KAILASH MAHAJAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT: SHOP NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, SATELITE COMPLEX, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.12.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, IN C.C.NO.1205/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.P.C, AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 528 of BNSS praying to quash the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed in C.C.No.1205/2023 by JMFC II Court, Hubballi wherein application filed by petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C came to be rejected. 2. The respondent initiated proceedings against petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act’ for brevity) and it is pending in C.C. No.1205/2023 on the file of the JMFC II Court, Hubballi. During the pendency of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 the case, the matter was posted for cross examination of P.W.1 and petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking directions to the respondent –complainant to produce his bank account statements and income tax returns for the period of 2021 to 2024. After hearing arguments on both sides, the said application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C came to be rejected by the impugned order. The said impugned order is sought to be quashed in this present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 would contend that they have taken up defence that the respondent –accused has no capacity to lend huge amount and in order to establish the said defence, documents sought for are required. He - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 further submits that said documents are required to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act. He submits that presumption can be rebutted either by cross examination of P.W.1 –complainant or by defence evidence. He submits that if documents sought for are not summoned from the complainant, petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 will not be able to establish their defence. Without considering these aspects, learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. With these, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that bank account statements are already produced and they are marked as Ex.P13 to 17. P.W.1 –complainant has stated in his cross examination that he has not shown the amount lent in his income tax returns. Considering the same, learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. With these, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record. 7. Petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed said application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C at the stage of further cross examination of P.W.1. In the said application, petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 have sought for direction to the complainant to produce his bank account statements and income tax returns for the period of 2021 to 2024. The reason stated in the said application is that accused have taken up their defence that respondent –accused has no capacity to lend huge amount and in order to establish the said defence documents sought for are required. In the impugned order it is noted that complainant has already produced his bank account statements and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 they are marked as Ex.P13 to 17. When the complainant has produced his bank account statements, there is no question of issuance of directions to the complainant to produce bank account statements as observed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order. 8. The complainant in his cross examination has admitted that there is no mention in his income tax returns about giving loan to accused persons. Learned Magistrate has observed that bank account statements itself are not proof of financial capacity. Considering the same, trial court held that summoning documents sought for are not necessary. More so, learned Magistrate has given liberty to petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 to make request to the Court again after completing cross examination of P.W.1. 9. Considering the said aspect, petitioners have liberty to make such request again after - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6437 WP No. 101913 of 2025 completing cross examination of P.W.1 –complainant. Without completing cross examination of P.W.1 and invoking liberty, petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 have approached this Court. Considering the said aspect no error is found in the impugned order. In the result, the petition is dismissed. 10. Petitioners –accused Nos.1 to 3 are at liberty to make an application to recall of P.W.1 for further cross examination. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22