##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4472 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. TEJA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

S/O KRISHNA KUMAR.J.D., R/AT DODDAKUNDA VILLAGE,

KUDLIPETE POST, SOMVARAPETE TALUK,

KODAGU DISTRICT -571235 …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAYARAJA A.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. RAVISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

S/O RUDRAPPA, R/ AT DODDAKUNDA VILLAGE, Digitally signed

KUDLIPETE POST, by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY SOMVARAPETE TALUK, Location: Hi gh

KODAGU DISTRICT -571235.

Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KANTEPPA HULEPPA., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.PC IN C.C.NO.331/2023, DATED 15.01.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE

HON'BLE JMFC V COURT D.K.MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE F.

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

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 15.01.2025 by which an application filed by the respondent under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. comes to be

allowed.

2. Heard Sri.Jayaraja A.T., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri.Kanteppa Huleppa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on

record.

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

3.1. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent-the

complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads the complainant to the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025

HC-KAR

3.2. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of

the claim of the complainant or the defence of the petitioner-

the accused.

3.3. The application is filed by the complainant seeking

himself to be examined in the matter by way of examination-in- chief. The petitioner-accused claims to be aggrieved by the said

allowing of the application.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

accused submits that to get over the questions that are posed in the cross-examination, the complainant wants to examine himself all over again. The concerned Court could not have allowed the application. The learned counsel submits that the order of the concerned Court dated 15.01.2025 must be

obliterated.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant

submits that in the light of the cross-examination of the petitioner to steer clear certain facts, he wants to examine himself all over again. The concerned Court has by a reasoned

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025

HC-KAR

order, allowed the said application and there is no warrant of interference. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, the only issue that falls for consideration is whether the order dated 15.01.2025 is in consonance with law or otherwise. Consonance with law would be whether it is in tune with purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The concerned Court, by the following order,

allows the application.

"ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED BY COMPLAINANT UNDER SECTION 311 OF CRPC

DATED 09.01.2025.

The learned counsel appearing for complainant has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW-1 to further lead his evidence. Further he submits that the documents which are sought to be produced is very much necessary in order to prove his case and thereby

prays to recall PW-1 to lead further evidence.

Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the accused filed his objection and submits that the said application is false, frivolous and is not maintainable under law or on facts. Further he submits that the complainant has not filed proper application in order to furnish further documents and hence the application ne