IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 328 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. A. LAWRENCE S/O T. ANTONYDASS, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT INFANT JESUS HOUSE, 4^TH CROSS, NAGAVARAPALYA MAIN ROAD, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 093.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. MILAN KUMAR R.

S/O S.K. RAMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by R/A NO 25, 9^TH B MAIN ROAD, SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY 2^ND C CROSS, KALYANNAGAR Location: High Court of BANGALORE - 560 043.

Karnataka …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)

CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU (CCH-20) IN CRL.RP.NO.25039/2025 DATED

12.12.2025 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereby, the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., by the petitioner in C.C.No.58115/2019 comes to be rejected and the order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in Crl.R.P.No.25039/2025, which affirms the said rejection.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is the accused, the respondent, the complainant. Two have a transaction; in furtherance of the said transaction, cheques are issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, which when presented, are dishonoured. The dishonouring of the cheques is what has driven the complainant to the concerned Court in C.C.No.58115/2019.

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

The accused files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. at the fag end of the proceedings. This comes to be rejected by the concerned Court by its order dated 21.04.2025 and the matter is posted for arguments. This order of the learned Magistrate is challenged by the petitioner - accused before the revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.25039/2025 and the revision petition comes to be rejected by an order dated 12.12.2025. The petitioner is now at the door of this Court challenging these two orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner for further cross-examination of the complainant by allowing the application. The orders of the concerned Courts are erroneous, is his submission.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Notice to respondent need not be issued.

6. What has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition are, the two orders of the concerned Courts. The order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the learned Magistrate reads as follows.

“ORDERS ON APPLICATION U/S 311 CR.P.C.

The counsel for the accused has filed this application U/Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C seeking to summon Sri. Mahesh Kumar S/o Prakash Reddy, 3rd Street, Opposite to Yellow Mart, PWD Road, Akash Nagar, Guruvareddy Layout, Bangalore-16.

He has stated that while going through cross-

examination of PW1 and DW1, he came to know that there was no transaction between them, but the entire transaction has been taken place with the above said witness who was a financier and obtained the cheque in question alongwith one more blank signed cheque and original document of the accused pertaining to land situated at Coorge and also blank signed stamp paper. The complainant has filled the contents of the cheque in question and got created the lease agreement on the said blank E-stamp paper and has filed this false case.

Accordingly, prayed for allowing the application.

The learned counsel for the complainant has filed his objection