C. AJITH KUMAR Vs. SREENIVASA HEGDEN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure VI summons issued to the petitioner is under challenge. The petitioner is a practising lawyer. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner was summoned before the court below for giving evidence. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court through Crl.M.C. No.2891/2014. The said Crl. M.C. was disposed of by this Court through Annexure III order whereby the court below was directed not to summon the petitioner in case the evidence to be tendered is not one coming within the proviso to section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) Even after that, at the instance of the complainant once again the petitioner was summoned before the court below through Annexure IV summons in C.M.P. No.4390/2013. In the said summons it was shown that the case relates to an offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court through Crl.M.C.No.7899/2016. This Court allowed the Crl. M.C. and quashed the said summons. The court below was again directed to issue fresh summons in tune with the directions given by this Court in Annexure III order, in case the evidence to be tendered comes within the purview of the proviso to Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) Presently, Annexure VI summons has been issued, with the copy of the petition filed by the complainant before the court below. Once again, the petitioner has been summoned. The same matters covered by Annexure III order have been highlighted in the petition filed by the complainant along with Annexure VI summons. Apart from the above, a new fact as to whether the petitioner had issued the notice after seeing the title deed is also incorporated. The said aspect is also not one coming withing the purview of the proviso to Section 126 of the Evidence Act. Matters being so, this is a case wherein an attempt is being made by the court below to unnecessarily summon and drag the lawyer of the opposite party to the court below for the purpose of giving evidence. When the matter is clearly covered by Annexure III and Annexure V, the court below ought not to have issued Annexure VI summons to the petitioner. The examination of the petitioner is quite unnecessary and therefore, Annexure VI summons is liable to be quashed.