##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17359 CRL.P No. 3341 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3341 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI A S KRISHNE GOWDA S/O.LATE SIDDE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS COFFEE PLANTER

HOSAHALLI, AVATHI, AVATHI POST CHIKKAMANAGLURU TALUK- 577101

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI P N THYAGARAJ Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI SON OF LATE P.M.NANE GOWDA J KARISHETTY

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Location: High AGRICULTURIST AND COFFEE BUSINESS Court of

Karnataka R/O.JOLDAPALYA, JOLDAL POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK -577101.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. UTSAV GOWDA P S., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2026 PASSED BY II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. CHIKKAMAGALURU WITH

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17359 CRL.P No. 3341 of 2026

HC-KAR

RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 311 OF CR.P.C.

VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

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 the

rejection of an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

3. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent is the

complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction had led the complainant before the concerned court invoking Section 200 of Cr.PC, for offence punishable under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The issue to the lis does not relate to the merit of

the claim of the complainant or the defense of the accused. When an application comes to be filed by the accused under

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17359 CRL.P No. 3341 of 2026

HC-KAR

Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to summon the bank manager for the purpose of speaking on the documents that have already been marked. The concerned Court has rejected the application on the score that it should not be necessary in the light of the proceedings being summary in nature. That is what is called in

question in case at hand.

5. The learned counsel appearing to the petitioner

would reiterate the grounds that are set out in the application or in the petition to contend that one opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to examine the Bank Manager qua,

the documents that are already in place.

6. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that the instrument is admitted, the signature is admitted and what remains under Section 143 of the N.I. Act is with regard to liability. The Bank Manager cannot be summoned to speak up to all the documents that are produced

in a summary trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17359 CRL.P No. 3341 of 2026

HC-KAR

8. The issue in the subject case lies in a narrow

compass. The order that drives the petitioner to this Court in

the subject petition is as follows:

ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 311 OF Cr.P.C. FILED BY THE ACCUSED.

The accused has filed the present application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of (1) Dr. Santhosh Netha, Spandana Hospital, Chikmagalur and (2) the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Avathi Branch, Chikmagalur Taluk, contending that their evidence

necessary to substantiate his defence is

2. The complainant has filed detailed objections contending that the application is not maintainable, that it is filed at a belated stage only to protract the proceedings, that the proposed witnesses are not relevant to the issues involved in the present complaint, and that the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. cannot be

exercised to fill up lacunae in the defence of the accused.

3. The present case is a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, wherein the primary issues for consideration are the issuance of cheque, existen