ORDER : These petitions are filed by the complainant under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, before the trial Court challenging the common order passed on applications filed under Sections 311 and 91 of Cr.PC wherein prayer was sought that the complainant wants to confront some crucial documents so as to prove his case and sought short date to further examine the witness to furnish some additional documents to be received from the Bank authorities and the documents such as statement of bank accounts and details of the account pertaining to the accused from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2012 are very much necessary and have to be summoned from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Yenumulapally Branch, Andhra Pradesh and initially the Bank’s name was called as ING Vysya Bank Limited and now said Bank is merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The statement of account details are in custody of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and hence prayed the trial Court to pass order for summoning the Branch Manager and order to produce those two bank accounts. The grounds urged in the application is that on perusal of the complaint, account statement clearly reflects the details of the accounts of the accused and name is reflected bank account’s holder. It is prima facie case of the complainant and therefore the trial Court ought to have permitted to prove his case by giving an opportunity. 2. Learned Counsel also filed application under Section 311 of Cr.PC for recalling of DW.1 for cross examination and in order to substantiate the claim of the complainant, further cross examination is necessary. 3. Those two applications are objected by the respondent/accused herein contending that witness DW.1 has been cross examined long back and thereafter other witnesses were also examined and accused also led his evidence and he has been cross examined in length on different occasions. Instead of arguing the case, the application is filed at the belated stage and there cannot be any order. 4. The trial Judge after hearing both the sides rejected the applications on the ground that both the parties have led their evidence and the complaint was filed in the year 2015. The complainant also examined two witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 and when the matter was posted for arguments, the present applications are filed. 4. The trial Judge after hearing both the sides rejected the applications on the ground that both the parties have led their evidence and the complaint was filed in the year 2015. The complainant also examined two witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 and when the matter was posted for arguments, the present applications are filed. The documents sought by the complainant can be obtained under the Right to Information Act and without obtaining the documents, he has filed these two applications for summoning the Branch Manager of the Bank. 5. Though DW.1 has been cross examined on three occasions to the fullest satisfaction, there is no any merit. Hence, the complainant is before this Court in all the matters contending that the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that complainant can get documents through Right to Information Act and already the matter has been reached the stage of final arguments and no need to produce the said documents. 6. Learned Counsel would vehemently contend that even after rejection of the application also when the application was given to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the same was rejected giving reasons that the Bank is a private entity, it does not come within the purview of the Act and as such not required to furnish any information under the Act. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in view of the order passed by the trial Court, the complainant is not able to prove his case to substantiate his case. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the documents summoned from the Bank pertaining to the years 2009 to 2012 and that the witnesses were examined long back and DW.1 was examined and cross examined. Instead of addressing the arguments on merits, the complainant is protracting the proceedings and the application is filed at the belated stage and he ought to have filed applications in the earlier stage when he examined the witnesses on behalf of the complainant and after closure of the cross examination of DW.1 in three occasions, the present applications are filed. There is no merit in the applications. The trial Court also rightly considered the objections of the respondent herein that the applications are filed belatedly and the complainant has not made any efforts to get documents through Right to Information Act. 8. There is no merit in the applications. The trial Court also rightly considered the objections of the respondent herein that the applications are filed belatedly and the complainant has not made any efforts to get documents through Right to Information Act. 8. Having heard the petitioner’s Counsel and the respondent’s Counsel and on perusal of the complaint averments which is produced before the Court, the specific case of the complainant is that the amount was paid in the year 2010 i.e., in the month of January, February and March and the accused had agreed to pay interest and subsequently paid interest to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Ultimately, he has not paid interest after 2014 onwards and hence the complainant was forced to file case in the year 2015. 9. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondent herein was making payment of interest through bank account and hence the statement of account of the bank pertaining to the accused is necessary to prove the case of the complainant. If the Bank official is summoned to produce the documents and place the same before the Court, it will not take away the case of the accused. 10. The very contention of the respondent’s Counsel is that the present application is filed belatedly and there is no need to produce those bank statement. The trial Court has also given full opportunity to the complainant to examine three witnesses and thereafter DW.1 was examined and fully cross examined. 11. Having perused the order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has rejected the applications only on the ground that the complainant ought to have obtained those documents through Right to Information Act and without obtaining documents from the concerned Bank, he has filed two applications to summon Bank Manager. Even after dismissal of the applications also, the petitioner made his efforts to get documents through the Right to Information Act and those applications were rejected vide AnnexureG and the Bank has given an endorsement stating that Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited is a private entity, does not come within the purview under the Act and as such not required to furnish any information under the Act. When the complainant in order to prove his case, summoned the documents from the Bank for the years 2009 to 2012, since the transaction took place in the year 2010, according to the complainant, payment was made in the year 2010 and subsequently interest was paid, the trial Court ought to have considered prayer of the complainant instead of dismissing the application in coming to the conclusion that he ought to have obtained the same under the Right to Information Act. Now documents placed before the Court is clear that effort made by the complainant to get the documents was rejected. The very contention of the respondent that those documents are not relevant for consideration of case on merits also cannot be accepted for the reason that when the complainant’s case is that after receipt of the amount by the accused, he was paying interest through the bank account and when he intended to substantiate the same, the documents were sought to be produced before the trial Court. The very approach of the trial Court is erroneous and no doubt the case was at the stage of arguments and the applications also can be entertained even at the time of arguments for recalling of application under Section 31 of Cr.PC and also application is filed under Section 91 of Cr.PC summoning the Bank Manager to produce the bank statement of the accused. It has to be noted that the application under the Right to Information Act given by the complainant was also rejected by the Bank. Under the circumstances, in order to substantiate the contention of the complainant, the documents of the accused is necessary to prove the case of the complainant. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the applications only on the ground that he could obtain documents under the Right to Information Act and hence if an opportunity is given to the complainant in order to substantiate the case of the complainant, no prejudice will be caused to the accused. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the applications only on the ground that he could obtain documents under the Right to Information Act and hence if an opportunity is given to the complainant in order to substantiate the case of the complainant, no prejudice will be caused to the accused. The complainant has to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and accused has to only make out preponderance of probabilities while proving his defence which he has taken during the course of the trial and hence it is appropriate to set aside the order of the trial Court and consequently allow the applications filed under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.PC for cross examination of DW.1 and summoning of the documents. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER [a] The petitions are allowed. [b] The common order dated 4.2.2020 passed in C.C. Nos.26682/2015, 26696/2015, 26689/2015, 26680/2015, 26684/2015 and 26691/2015 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and the applications filed by the complainant/petitioner herein under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.PC are allowed.