DATED

17.03.2021

IN

C.C.NO.27337/2017, BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF THE XXII

2

A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY ON INTERIM APPLICATION FILED

BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT UNDER SEC.311 OF THE

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEEKING TO RECALL D.W.1

(PETITIONER/ACCUSED) FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION

(VIDE ANNEXURE-A HEREIN)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the impugned order

dated 17.03.2021 in C.C.No.27337/2017 pending before

the XXII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru City for having allowed the

Interim Application filed by the respondent/complainant

under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to recall DW1 for

further cross examination.

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and issuing notice to respondent is dispensed

with.

3.

The accused is before the Trial Court for the

offences

punishable

under

Section

138

Negotiable

Instruments Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel

3

that the petitioner is daughter-in-law and the respondent-

complainant is mother-in-law and divorce is granted

between the husband and wife. The proceedings under

Section 138 of NI Act is before the XXII ACMM, Bengaluru

since 2017 and DW1 the petitioner is said to have been

examined thrice. In spite of the same the complainant

files application for recalling DW1 by filing application

under Section 311 Cr.P.C which was allowed and therefore

the petitioner shall not be allowed to recall once again for

the purpose of cross examination. However the learned

counsel for the petitioner not produced the deposition of

the petitioner who has lead evidence as DW1. As seen

from the record DW1 was examined at length on various

date of hearing, however because of pandemic situation

and lockdown for last two years the examination of the

witnesses are stalled by the SOP. Such being the case as

per Section 311 of Cr.P.C magistrate has power to recall

any witnesses who are examined or not examined. Such

being the case, I do not find any error in allowing the

4

application of DW1 once again for recalling DW1 for the

purpose of cross examination.

Accordingly petition is dismissed.

However trial court is directed to dispose of the matter

as early as possible by imposing costs on the complainant

if any further adjournments is sought.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV