The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 20.06.2022, passed in C.C.No.5137/2016, by the

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, rejecting the

application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking re-

examination of PW.1 3 the petitioner herself.

2. Heard Sri Krishna S. Vyas, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. The facts germane for the consideration of the lis, are

as follows:

The petitioner 3 complainant and the respondent 3

accused generate a transaction amongst themselves, which

leads to the accused issuing certain cheque to the complainant,

- 3 -

which when presented for its realisation, is returned for want of

sufficient funds. This lead the petitioner - complainant to

initiate proceedings against the accused under Section 200 of

the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter.

The issue in the case at hand is that, the petitioner files an

application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking her recall

for further examination. The concerned Court after noticing

that the petitioner was in the habit of filing applications under

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. or other provisions of law, which is

only to drag the proceedings, has rejected the application. The

rejection of the application is what drives the petitioner to this

Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that there are civil suits pending between the parties and the

evidence tendered by the complainant in the civil Court is

required to be noted in the present proceedings and therefore,

he wanted to examine herself again, notwithstanding the fact

that the examination and cross-examination were already over

way back in the year 2018.

- 4 -

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would take this

Court through the documents filed by the petitioner to contend

that it is only a ruse to drag the proceedings pending before the

Court, in which the petitioner herself is the complainant and

would submit that the Court has passed detailed order noticing

all these factors.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and

have perused the material on record.

8. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. permits filing of application

seeking recalling of witnesses for examination, for further

cross-examination as the case would be, at any stage of

proceedings. At any stage of the proceedings would not mean

that it can be abused at any stage of the trial. The liberty

given by Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be extended to an

inevitable extent as is done in the case at hand as such abuse

as is done by the petitioner would run counter to the spirit of

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. itself.

- 5 -

9. It is germane to notice the reason rendered by the

concerned Court for rejection of the application under Section

311 of Cr.P.C. The order reads as follows:

<10. It is pertinent to note here that, the

complainant has filed similar application U/s.311 of

Cr.P.C for further chief examination and to produce

the documents which was already allowed with cost of

Rs.300/- vide order dt: 29.7.2017 and PW.1 was

recalled for further chief examination and permit to

produce the documents subject to relevancy and

proof.

11. The complainant has also filed application

under the provision of Sec.65 of Indian Evidence Act

seeking

permission

to

produce

the

secondary

evidence which was already came to be allowed vide

order dt:25.11.2017.

12. The records would already indicate that, the

complainant also filed similar application U/s.311 of

Cr.P.C. which was came to be dismissed vide order

dt: 25.6.2018. The complainant also filed similar

application under the provision of Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C.

for further chief examination and to produce the

documents which was came to be allowed vide order

dt:9.10.2018 and the com