IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13260 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

N SUJITH KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

S/O N KORAGAPPA,

R/AT NISCHITHA NIVAS, LEA CRASTA COMPOUND,

YEYYADI,

MANGALURU-575 008.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RENSPRE PRITHESH DSOUZA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS ANITHARA BARATHARAJ,

AGED ABUT 40 YEARS,

W/O BHARATHRAJ,

Digitally

signed by R/AT DHANVI VILLA,

LAKSHMI T

MADOOR, KOTEKAR,

Location:

High Court MANGALURU-575 022.

of Karnataka

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528

BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PUTTUR IN CC NO.34/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT 1881 REJECTING THE APPLICATION DATED 25.04.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 311 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 TO RECALL PW1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1 AND

CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE THE RESPONDENT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

An application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/accused to cross examine P.W.1 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

2. This case pertains to the proceedings initiated against the accused for an offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. The complaint was filed in the year 2019. As per the order sheet, on 23.11.2024, learned Magistrate initially allowed the application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C., for cross examination of PW1, by imposing cost of Rs.500/-. It is seen that even thereafter, the complainant was not cross examined by the accused. One more application was filed, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 25.04.2025.

3. Learned Magistrate while rejecting the application has taken into consideration that the case is of the year 2020 and the accused has partly cross examined PW1. However, thereafter, his cross examination was taken as Nil and the matter was posted for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is also observed that when P.W.1 was present on 13.02.2025, learned counsel for accused did not cross examine him and therefore, rejected the application, in view of the conduct of the accused, as he has filed repeated applications.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that if cross examination of P.W.1 is not allowed, great prejudice will be caused to the defense. He further submits that, the statement of the accused is not yet recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

5. In the facts and circumstances, this court deems it fit to give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused, to cross examine P.W.1 to meet the ends of justice, however by imposing cost. Hence, the following order;

ORDER (i) The petition is allowed (ii) The order dated 25.4.2025 passed in C.C.No.34/2020 by the court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, is hereby quashed.

(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on

21.11.2025 and deposit cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), which shall be paid to the complainant on his appearance.

(iv) Learned Magistrate shall fix a date for cross examination of PW1 and on that day, the defence shall cross examine him and no further time shall be granted.

Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10