- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13231 CRL.P No. 16842 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16842 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS.DIVYA SATHISH, W/O. SATHISH, D/O. SADASHIVIAH C.S., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, DSS ENTERPRISES, NO. 1300, AADHAAR COMPLEX, 41ST CROSS, 25TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 069. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMEESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: MR.T.V.NARASIMHALU, S/O LATE T.VENKATASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A. NO. 1250, 2ND CROSS, 20TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.11.2025 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13231 CRL.P No. 16842 of 2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM (SCCH-9) AT BENGALURU ON AN APPLICATION FILED U/S.311 R/W SEC.254(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN C.C.NO.2039/2021 AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 08.10.2025 FILED BY PETITIONER/ACCUSED SEEKING TO ISSUE A WITNESS SUMMONS TO CALLING SRI.B.N.SUNIL KUMAR, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, FOR EXAMINATION AS WITNESS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 26.11.2025 by which the application under Section 311 read with Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C., comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri.Lakshmeesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Piyush Kumar Jain D, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13231 CRL.P No. 16842 of 2025 3.1. Two cheques become the subject matter of a transaction between the parties before the concerned Court in C.C.No.2039/2021. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter between the parties. An application comes to be filed before the concerned Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for production of a computation sheet of taxable income and the income tax records for the year 2016-17. The concerned Court by the following order, rejects the application: "7. Point No1: As could be seen from the record it appears that, the complainant has filed private complaint against the accused U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents and he was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. Thereafter, accused himself examined as DW.1 and subjected to cross examination and produced the documents. After completion of the evidence, matter posted for arguments, at this stage accused come up with this application for summoning the witness mentioned in the application to adduce evidence regarding issuance of Ex.P.9 and 10. 8. In this regard, perused the record, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 138 of N I Act based on the disputed cheque. There is no dispute regarding issuance of cheque and signature of the accused on disputed cheque. Accused clearly admitted the above facts. When the accused raised the financial capacity of the complainant, in order to prove his financial capacity, complainant has produced the Ex.P.9 and 10. But accused taken the defense that Ex.P.9 and 10 are created documents hence, issue summons to the Sunil Kumar, Chartered accountant and issued the Ex.P.9 and 10. In support of his defense he has not produced any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13231 CRL.P No. 16842 of 2025 corroborative document to show his defense. Further, the complainant has filed this complaint only on the basis of disputed cheque. Accused has not denied the disputed cheque and signature. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue the summons to the chartered accountant to give evidence of Ex.P.9 and 10 to prove the genuineness of the said document. Hence, accused has not made out sufficient ground to allow the application. Hence, with these observation, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 9. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the accused u/sec.311 r/w Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected." 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the allegation is that of forgery. Therefore, the income tax records are necessary for the reason, to prove the innocence of the petitioner and the capacity of the complainant in lending the amount against which the cheque is issued. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that the necessary documents with regard to the income tax returns are also placed before the court. The matter is of the year 2020. The accused on one ground or the other is wanting to drag the proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13231 CRL.P No. 16842 of 2025 6. A perusal at the order would indicate that what is necessary is already produced. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the respondent would merit acceptance that the petitioner is wanting to drag the issue on one pretext or the other. 7. In that light, finding no warrant to interfere with the aforesaid order, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5