- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 778 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. N. NAGALINGASWAMY S/O SRI. R. NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.163, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.V. VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. ADNAN ATEEQH TURABI S/O MR. ATEEQH TURABI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, 5TH "C" CROSS, 16TH MAIN, MCHS COLONY, BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. METRI MAHAMMADISMAYIL KAREEMSAHEB, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IN C.C.NO.28360/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of an order dated 13.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.28360/2017 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in terms of which an application filed by the respondent under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code was allowed. 2. (i) The petitioner had initiated proceedings to prosecute the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as 'N.I.Act' for short). The petitioner, in the private complaint contended that the respondent had represented that he possessed a 50% undivided share in an incomplete residential building constructed on Site No.28, and that he was in need of funds to complete the construction. It was further contended that based on such representation, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a memorandum of understanding in terms of which, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the respondent and he agreed to repay the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 said sum of Rs.50,00,000/- after completion and sale of the unfinished residential building. It was also agreed that the respondent would pay one-third of the profits realised from the sale of 50% of the apartments constructed on the said property. (ii) The petitioner claimed that even after the respondent sold all the apartments constructed, he did not repay the amount as agreed under the memorandum of understanding. It was further contended that the respondent thereafter issued a cheque dated 18.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner towards part payment of the amount due. The petitioner claimed that the said cheque was dishonored on presentation, with the endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer.' Thereafter, the petitioner initiated prosecution against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (iii) When the case was set down for trial, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the case was posted for cross- examination. At that stage, the respondent filed an application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to summon the following documents: (i) Pan card of the petitioner; (ii) Income tax returns of the petitioner, duly certified by the chartered accountant for the assessment years 2014 to 2018 and till date; (iii) Books of accounts and other documents filed along with the income tax returns, including documents relating to the source of income for the years 2014 to 2018; (iv) Bank account statements of the petitioner from 01.04.2015 till date; (v) The memorandum of understanding produced by PW.1 before Hulimavu Police Station in Cr.No.245/ 2017; (vi) Certified copies of the statements of PW.1 and his friend regarding the alleged memorandum of understanding filed in Cr.No.245/2017 of Hulimavu Police Station. (iv) The said application was opposed by the petitioner contending that the documents sought to be summoned were neither relevant for the purpose of the case nor necessary for adjudication of the issues involved. It was contended that the respondent had entered into memorandum of understanding with the petitioner, in terms of which, the respondent had agreed to repay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and that the cheque - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 in question was issued towards discharge of the said liability. It was therefore contended that there was no necessity to summon the documents sought for by the respondent. (v) The Trial Court, upon considering the contentions urged by the parties as well as the evidence of PW.1, allowed the application by the impugned order and directed PW.1 to produce the following documents: (i) PAN card; (ii) Income Tax Returns duly certified by a Chartered Accountant and the concerned authority; (iii) Books of accounts and other documents submitted along with the Income Tax Returns; and source of income; (iv) Bank account statements from 01.04.2015 till date; (v) Second MOU and the Memorandum of Understanding purportedly produced by PW.1 in Crime No.245/2017 of Hulimavu Police Station; and (vi) Certified copies of the statements of PW.1 and his friend recorded in Crime No.245/2017. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an enquiry into an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 summary in nature and therefore the respondent cannot be permitted to embark upon a fishing or a roving enquiry. He also contends that it is for the petitioner to prove that there existed a legally enforceable debt and that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent towards discharge of the said liability. He further submits that in the event the respondent is able to establish that no transaction had taken place between the parties and that there was no subsisting debt, the Court may draw an adverse inference against the petitioner for non- production of the documents summoned. He thus submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in directing the petitioner to produce the documents sought for. 5. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he had admitted that he was an income tax assessee. He contends that when PW.1 was questioned whether he had any objection to produce the income tax returns, he evaded the question by stating that he would have to seek instructions from his auditor. He further contends that similar questions were put to PW.1 with regard to his bank accounts and other - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 documents, to which he responded that he would have to consult his auditor. As regards the documents produced before Hulimavu Police Station are concerned, PW.1 stated that he would have to seek instructions from his advocate. Likewise, with regard to the statements made by him before Hulimavu Police Station, he stated that he would have to obtain instructions from his advocate. (ii) The learned counsel therefore contended that the petitioner has evaded answering questions during cross- examination and has failed to furnish necessary particulars. Therefore, he submits that the contention of the petitioner that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt is doubtful. He contends that the documents summoned are necessary and relevant for the purpose of determining whether there existed a legally enforceable debt due from the respondent to the petitioner. 6. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 7. The petitioner, in the complaint, has contended that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent towards lawful discharge of a debt due in terms of memorandum of understanding at Ex.P1. It appears from the cross-examination of PW.1 that several questions were put to him with regard to his income tax returns, source of income etc., However, the petitioner had avoided answering these questions by stating that he has to seek instructions from his auditor. Likewise, PW.1 referred to a second memorandum of understanding purportedly entered into between himself and the respondent, which was stated to have been produced before the Hulimavu Police Station in Cr.No.245/2017. When questioned, whether he had any objection to produce the said document, he stated that he has to seek instructions from his advocate. 8. Further, when certain statements of the petitioner recorded by the Hulimavu police station were confronted to him, he was not able to identify and stated that he has to seek instructions from his advocate. It is thus apparent that at every stage of cross-examination, PW.1 has avoided answering relevant questions put to him by the respondent. Therefore, as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19312 CRL.P No. 778 of 2019 rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent, the documents summoned are necessary to establish whether any transaction has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent and whether there existed a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court has considered the same in the right perspective and has rightly held that these documents are relevant and necessary for the purpose of determining the case. Consequently, the Trial Court was justified in calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents sought for by the respondent. 9. Hence there is no error warranting interference in this petition. Consequently the petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. If the petitioner produces the original PAN card, the Trial Court shall retain a photocopy of the same and return the original PAN card to the petitioner. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12