- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3808 CRL.P No. 10976 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10976 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. B.S.SUSHEELA RAMAMURTHY, WIFE OF LATE B.RAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1548, 26TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI. VENKATESH PRASAD R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DHARANESH, SON OF SHIVANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, 2ND CROSS, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, JARAGANAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I. S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025, PASSED BY THE LD. XII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3808 CRL.P No. 10976 of 2025 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SCCH-8) IN CC.NO.8861/2021, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED, U/S 91 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.06.2025 in C.C.No.8861/2021 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to summon one person by name K.S.Kaushik. 2. Heard Sri.V.S.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Dilip Kumar I.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. The accused was before this Court calling in question certain proceedings in C.C.No.21805/2021 and connected cases. This court has dismissed the petition with a direction to the investigating officer to investigate the crime in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3808 CRL.P No. 10976 of 2025 Crime No.102 of 2021, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the said order. The issue does not relate to the said proceeding. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent herein is now complained of by the respondent- Complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate in C.C.No.8861/2021 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issues does not relate to the merit of the matter. Before the concerned Court, the accused files an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the person by name K.S.Kaushik on the score that he is the kingpin in the entire episode of exchange of cheques between the parties. The said application is rejected, the rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.V.S.Hegde appearing for the petitioner submits that the summoning of the said person K.S.Kaushik is imperative, as the accused will not be able to prove fraud in the entire transaction unless K.S.Kaushik is summoned, therefore, the rejection of which is erroneous in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3808 CRL.P No. 10976 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there is no contract between the said person i.e., K.S.Kaushik and the respondent. The petitioner- accused has some problem with K.S.Kaushik, which is not the matter before the Court examining the cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue relates to an application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and its dismissal. The concerned Court answering the application has ordered as follows: “REASONS 7. Point.No.1: The complainant has filed complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act. When the matter was posted for defence evidence, at that stage, the complainant has filed this application to call the witness namely K.S. Kaushik for adducing evidence and produce the whatsapp chats in between him and Prabhakar who is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3808 CRL.P No. 10976 of 2025 the son-in-law of the accused. The accused contention is that her son-in-law Prabhakar had introduced the K.S.Kaushik, as a money recovery person, she has entrusted the said K.S.Kaushik for recover the loan amount from one Smt. Pushpa Nagarajaiah, when she entrusted work to the said Kaushik, there is a conversation in between the Kaushik and her son-in-law Prabhakar and in that conversation he named many persons, court halls, names of judges and process like stage managing with the Banashankari police by filing a complaint through the accused against the said Pushpa Nagarajaiah as well as against K.S.Kaushik and creating statements, it was recorded by her son-in-law. Further contention is that the said K.S.Kaushik is a fraudster and by colluding with the complainant filed this false case. As per version of the accused the whatsapp chats and phone conversation regarding the case entrusted by her to the K.S.Kaushik, accused has not stated how the said case conversation and whatsapp chats are related to this case on hand and also how it is helpful to decide the issue involved in this case. As per the version of the accused the said K.S. Kaushik is the fraudster and he has stolen the cheque, but accused has not produced any document in this regard and also whether she has taken any legal action against the said person or not. Therefore, there is no valid reasons to allow the application. Hence, this court answered this Point No.1 in the Negative. 8. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Application filed by the accused under section 91 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.” 8. It is an admitted fact that there is no transaction between K.S.Kaushik and the complainant. There is a transaction between complainant and the present petitioner concerning a cheque. The issuance of cheque is what is being - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3808 CRL.P No. 10976 of 2025 considered before the concerned Court. When K.S.Kaushik has nothing to do with the parties to the lis, it is wholly un- understandable as to how the said K.S.Kaushik can be brought into the proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent in a summary trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. Finding no warrant to interfere with the rejection of the application, the application stands rejected. With the aforesaid observations, the Criminal Petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28