- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15460 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5389 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. M/S R.S. RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD NO.27/1, 10TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560055 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. RAGHU RAM R. 2. MR. RAGHU RAM R AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O MR. RAMCHANDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO.28/1 9TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003 3. MR. VIJAYENDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O MR HANUMAIAH RESIDING AT NO.4329 2ND CROSS, 13TH MAIN SUBRAMANYANAGR BANGALORE-560021 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED SABIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAI PRAKASH RAO N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. KARTHEEK D.N. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE D.R. NAGRAJSETTY Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15460 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2018 RESIDING AT NO.18/3 NAGAPPA STREET BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. BALAJI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW ON 24.04.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER SECTION 91(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY DIRECTING THE ISSUE OF SUMMONS TO THE WITNESS TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION IN C.C.NO.32875/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.32875/2014 by which, an application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. (i) The respondent initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners were arraigned as accused, who contested the case. The respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15460 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2018 was examined as PW.1 and in the course of his cross- examination, he admitted that he had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mr. Srinivas. After the evidence of PW.1 was closed, the petitioners herein filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for direction to the respondent to produce the power of attorney dated 26.02.2013. The said application was allowed in terms of an order dated 16.01.2018. However, the said Mr. Srinivas was in possession of the power of attorney and therefore, a summons was issued to him through police in terms of an order dated 23.03.2018. Later, the petitioners again filed another application seeking leave of the Court to direct Mr. Srinivas to produce the power of attorney dated 26.02.2013. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioners had filed a similar application on an earlier occasion, which was considered and allowed and no steps were taken by the petitioners pursuant to the order passed on the earlier application. (ii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15460 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2018 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Trial Court has wrongly rejected the application by relying upon an order passed on 29.01.2018. He contends that both the applications were for different purposes. While the earlier application was allowed and a direction was issued to the complainant to produce the original of the power of attorney, the subsequent application was for seeking permission to confront the photocopy of the document to the respondent, who was examined as PW.1. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is incorrect and warrants interference. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that certain payments were made to one Mr.Srinivas, who purportedly was the power of attorney of the respondent/complainant and that he had passed on certain vouchers. During the course of cross- examination of respondent/PW1, suggestions were put to him - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15460 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2018 that Mr.Srinivas was his power of attorney. PW.1 answered the same in the following terms:- "F ªÀÄÆgÀÆ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ²æäªÁ¸ï EªÀjUÉ C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ »A¥Àr¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÀzÀj ²æäªÁ¸ï EªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ ¥Àæw¤¢ü¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. C¸À®Ä C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ²æäªÁ¸ï EªÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ EzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀUÉÆAqÁV¤AzÀ®Æ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ D C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀAUÀªÉà §gÀ°®è. DgÉÆæ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQëÃzÁgÀjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÁUÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆr CzÀgÀ C¸À®Ä zÁR¯É ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀzÉà eÉgÁPïì zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. eÉgÁPïì zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀßzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æäªÁ¸ï E§âgÀzÀÆ ¨sÁªÀavÀæ EzÉ. 7. DgÉÆæ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ¸ÁQëÃzÁgÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÉÇÃZÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ CzÀgÀ°è ²æäªÁ¸ï EªÀgÀ ¸À» EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ CªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀÄAvÉ PÁtÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëÃzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëÃzÁgÀjUÉ ¤¦.5 zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ CzÀgÀ eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²æäªÁ¸ï EªÀgÉà ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ²æäªÁ¸ï EªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¸ÀAzÉúÀ §A¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ²æäªÁ¸ï FvÀ £Á£ÀÄ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ J¯Áè PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ ZÀað¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj." (underlining by Court) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15460 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2018 6. The petitioners have confronted the said document to PW.1, who did not identify that it was the power of attorney executed by Mr.Srinivas. The petitioners have already taken steps to call for the original of the power of attorney from Mr.Srinivas and the Trial Court had already issued summons to him through the police. Therefore, it was for the petitioners to take necessary steps to summon the documents and hence, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners to permit them to again confront the very same photocopy that was denied by PW1. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. Hence, this petition is dismissed. 8. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2