- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464312026 NC: 2026:KHC:50568 CRL.P No. 9954 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9954 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH. K, SON OF SHRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, BALAJI LAYOUT PIPE LINE ROAD K K, MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO MANJUNATHA KALYANA MANTAPA, VAJARAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VARUN S, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT PRATHIBHA. M, WIFE OF LATE V. GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.67, KEB ROAD, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560062. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GIRISHA H M,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BHADRAVATHI IN CC.NO.69/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 94 OF BNSS, 2023, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 AND 142 OF N.I ACT. b) Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464312026 NC: 2026:KHC:50568 CRL.P No. 9954 of 2026 ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS DTD 11.05.2026 AND 13.05.2026 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 94 OF BNSS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, AT BHADRAVATHI IN CC.NO.69/2021, AT ANNEXURE K AND L RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed to quash the order rejecting the application under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') rejecting the application to summon the Bank Manager and the bank records relating to the account of the deceased husband of the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application was rejected on the ground that on earlier occasion the Bank Manager was summoned and documents were also summoned and marked and there is no need to summon Bank Manager again to secure the records. 4. It is the submission that the application is necessitated because of the stand taken in the oral argument Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464312026 NC: 2026:KHC:50568 CRL.P No. 9954 of 2026 advanced by the complainant wherein, that payment of Rs.11,00,000/- is not transferred from the account of the petitioner to the deceased husband of the complainant is disputed. Thus, it is urged that it is necessary to establish that the amount is transferred to the account of the deceased husband of the complainant and for this purpose, the bank records and evidence of the Manager are required. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application as the documents said to be summoned or the evidence of the manager is not required for adjudication of the dispute. 6. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that Rs.11,00,000/- paid by the petitioner to the account of one B. Gangaraju, the husband of the complainant is not disputed however, said payment is not relating to the transaction which is referred to in the complaint and it is relating to some other transaction. 7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464312026 NC: 2026:KHC:50568 CRL.P No. 9954 of 2026 8. The payment of Rs.11,00,000/- by the petitioner to the account of the husband of the complainant is not in dispute. The question is, whether the said payment relates to the same transaction referred to in the complaint or relating to some other transaction, is the question which is requires to be tried and adjudicated by the Trial Court. 9. Under these circumstances, there is no need to summon the records in terms of the application filed by the petitioner. 10. However, the Court shall take note of the fact that Rs.11,00,000/- is transferred by the petitioner to the account of the husband of the complainant. Whether the said payment is in relation to the disputed transaction in the complaint or not shall be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final hearing. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010464312026 NC: 2026:KHC:50568 CRL.P No. 9954 of 2026 12. Petition is dismissed. (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28 Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE