IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

AMARNATH SRIKANTACHAR S/O. SRIKANTACHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.3, SHRIKANTHAPURA BANGALORE URBAN KARNATAKA -560 073.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.84/3, 1^ST FLOOR, UCF CENTRE, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, LINGARAJPURAM Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 560 084 LAKSHMI T REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER Location:

High Court S. TEJASWI.

of Karnataka …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 04.09.2025 IN C.C.NO.4920/2024 PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT SMALL CAUSE JUDGE (SCCH-12) AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as directed by this Court, copy of the petition has been served on the learned counsel appearing for respondent before the trial Court.

2. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.

3. Petitioner seeks to set-aside the order dated

04.09.2025 passed in CC.No.4920/2024 by the Court of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, (SCCH-12) at Bengaluru.

4. Vide impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

5. The matter arises out of a proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6. Initially, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was filed to summon PW1/Complaint and to cross- examine him. The application was allowed on 17.05.2025 by imposing a cost of Rs.300/-. However, when the case was called on the next date of hearing i.e. on 28.06.2025 and subsequent dates the accused remained absent and failed to cross-examine PW1. One more application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was rejected by the impugned order dated 04.09.2025.

7. It is to be noted that when the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was allowed at the first instance, the learned Magistrate took into consideration that the learned counsel for the accused was suffering from some illness. Further, it is observed that the case is filed by the complainant in respect of two cheques alleged to have been given on the same dates for payment of personal loan said to have been received by the accused and therefore, the defence of the accused has to be elicited from the evidence by giving an opportunity to cross-examine PW1.

8. From the order sheet this Court finds that PW1 was not at all cross-examined in this case. Therefore, the accused can be given an opportunity to cross-examine PW1, otherwise prejudice is likely to be caused to him.

9. It is relevant to see that the cross-examination of PW1 was closed on 12.03.2025. The application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the first instance was allowed on imposition of cost on 17.05.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 28.06.2025. However, till 04.09.2025 the accused failed to cross-examine PW1. Hence, cost has to be imposed on the accused. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The order dated 04.09.2025 passed in CC.No.4920/2024 by the Court of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM (SCCH-12) at Bengaluru is set aside, subject to imposition of cost.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 04.11.2025.

iii. The learned Magistrate shall give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine PW1, by fixing a date on which date the petitioner shall cross-examine PW1 without taking further time.

iv. A cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is imposed on the accused. Which shall be, payable to PW1.

v. Petition is disposed of vi. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 stand disposed of Sd/-

(MO