Dismissed

Sri Dattatrey S/O Shivaram Bhat v. Sri Manjunath Nagappa Bhat

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2022CRL.P/102249/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by an accused cheque dishonour case. The petitioner sought recall of a prosecution witness for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which the trial court had rejected. Highlighting the eight-year pendency and prior cross-examinations, the bench found no justification to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application to recall the prosecution witness for further cross-examination was not allowed.

Sri Dattatrey S/O Shivaram Bhat Vs Sri Manjunath Nagappa… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102249 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102249 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI DATTATREY S/O SHIVARAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF THE ELECTRONIC WORKS, R/O MANMANE, POST IDAGUNDHI, TQ YELLAPUR (U.K)-581359.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. MANJUNATH NAGAPPA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. MANMANE, POST. IDAGUNDHI, TQ. YELLAPUR(U.K)-581359.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶16

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶17

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELLAPUR IN CC NO.254/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. FOR RECALLING THE PW-1 FOR FURTHER CROSSEXAMINATION MAY BE ALLOWED.

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 102249 of 2022

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Being aggrieved by rejection of his application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, to recall PW.1 for further cross examination, petitioner who is accused before the trial Court has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to provide him one more opportunity to further cross examination PW.1 by allowing his application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that, alleging that petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs.1,25,000/- towards legally recoverable debt and that it came to be dishonored on the grounds of insufficient funds, respondent filed complaint in PCR No.72/2013 and after taking cognizance it was registered in CC No.254/2021. With a prayer to recall PW.1 for further cross examination, petitioner filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. However the same is rejected, mainly on the ground that the affidavit is dated 27.11.2013.

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 102249 of 2022

¶27

During the course of arguments, learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner submits that one more opportunity be given to the petitioner to further cross examine PW.1.

¶29

On the other hand learned counsel for

¶30

respondent submits that this matter is of the year 2013. Already petitioner has cross examined PW.1 twice i.e., 18.02.2015 and 02.08.2016 and only to drag on the proceedings he has once again filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, and rightly it was dismissed on merits and not on the ground that in the affidavit the date is mention 27.11.2013.

¶31

It is relevant note that in the affidavit filed in

¶32

support of the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, the date is stated as 27.11.2013, which appears to

¶33

be a typographical error. Certainly, the trial Court has not rejected the application on the ground that in the affidavit the date is mentioned as 27.11.2013, though a reference is made to it. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 102249 of 2022

¶36

for the petitioner twice PW.1 has been cross examined. In fact at the instance of the petitioner the cheque is also referred to finger print expert and his report is also placed on record. Having regard to the fact that since eight years the matter is pending and there is no substance in the application filed by the petitioner, the trial Court has rejected his application to recall PW.1. I find no justification to interfere with the said order and

¶37

accordingly I proceed to pass the following;

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is

dismissed .

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Dattatrey S/O Shivaram Bhat v. Sri Manjunath Nagappa Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dattatrey S/O Shivaram Bhat v. Sri Manjunath Nagappa Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil Vs Basavaeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Sankeshwar

Mr Bajirao Sadashiv Ghorpade Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Balappa S/O Basappa Limbikai Vs Sri. Satish S/O Krishna Masuti

Sri.Mallappa Vs Trupti W/O Mallappa Angadi

Shivanand Shambulingayah Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kasturi W/O Ashok Pattar Vs the State of Karnataka