Karnataka HC Orders Complainant To Produce Bank Statements After Accused Disputes Capacity To Lend ₹5 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the accused’s request under Section 91 CrPC to obtain the complainant’s bank statements and property records relevant to the defence.

The court held

The petition was allowed in part, and the Trial Court’s order dated 7 July 2026 was partly set aside.

It also directed

The complainant was directed to produce the bank statements of his accounts.

If the accused disputes the correctness of the photocopies of the property records, the complainant must also produce certified copies.

The Court expressly left the merits of the complaint open.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenged the Trial Court’s rejection of her application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

pp. 2–4

She sought the complainant’s income-tax returns, PAN, bank statements, passbook and property records to support her challenge to his financial capacity to advance an alleged cash loan of ₹5,00,000, for which a cheque of ₹5,20,000 was issued.

pp. 2–4

The High Court noted that the Trial Court had addressed the income-tax issue but had not considered the requests for bank statements and property records; the complainant had referred to certain RTC records in his objections.

pp. 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the accused’s request under Section 91 CrPC to obtain the complainant’s bank statements and property records relevant to the defence.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the accused was entitled to production of the complainant’s income-tax returns and other requested documents to challenge his financial capacity.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Section 91 CrPC empowers a court to order production of documents or things necessary or desirable for the purposes of an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act create presumptions in favour of the holder of a cheque, placing a burden on the accused to rebut them.

p. 6

The Trial Court referred to John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 236, in considering the complainant’s obligation to prove his case.

p. 4

The High Court’s order recognises that documents bearing on the accused’s burden may be produced, while limiting the relief to the bank statements and, if their accuracy is disputed, certified copies of the property records.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 91

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 118 Section 139

04Reasoning

The accused disputed the complainant’s capacity to advance the alleged loan and sought documents to meet the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.

pp. 3–4, 6

The High Court found that the Trial Court had not addressed the requests for bank statements and property records.

pp. 5–6

It considered the bank-statement request legally tenable in light of the burden on the accused, and noted that the complainant had referred to the relevant property records in his objections.

pp. 5–6

The Court did not grant the broader request for income-tax returns or other documents, nor did it express a view on the merits of the complaint.

pp. 4–5, 7