Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
S.B. Vikram, S/O. Dr. S. Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
B. Venkatesh, S/O. Late B.K. Raman – Respondent
ORDER :
Mohammad Nawaz, J.
In all these petitions, parties are one and the same. Petitioners are the accused and respondent is the complainant, before the trial Court.
2. The learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2025, has rejected the applications filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in all the petitions.
3. Petitioners are seeking to set aside the impugned orders and to allow them to further cross-examine PW1/respondent, and PW2.
4. All these petitions arise out of the same issue, wherein the proceedings are initiated before the trial Court by the respondent/complainant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by the accused. The matter before the trial Court is at the stage of arguments.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, while preparing for final arguments, it came to light that certain crucial questions concerning the letter dated 12.08.2017 and the very authority of PW-1 to depose had not been put to the witnesses during earlier cross- examination and these questions go to the root of the matter and are vital for eliciting
Section 311 Cr.P.C. affords discretionary power to recall witnesses but must be exercised with caution, not to prolong proceedings without compelling reasons.
The main legal point established is the judicious exercise of discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to ensure the just decision of the case, considering the essentiality of evidence an....
The power to recall a witness for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and only when essential for a just decision, in accordance with the principles enumerated....
Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only when it is essential for just decision of case.
The discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously to prevent abuse of the legal process, especially in long-pending cases.
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for recalling a witness for cross-examination due to lack of concrete reasons and previous ample opportunities for cross-examination.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
