Disposed¶38

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v. Sri. Hafeez Ur Rahman

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRL.P/12954/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC application rejection; recall of PW1 for cross-examination; marking of document; no reasons disclosed; trial at fag end; documents marked in one connected case to be taken note of in other connected cases; common evidence; S.138 NI Act cheque case CC 504/2017; Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Beluru; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; CRL.P 12954/2025; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed: no interference with the trial court's rejection of the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application, but with the direction/observation that any document marked in one connected case, if necessary for the defence of the accused, shall be permitted to be taken note of in the other connected cases. ¶38

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther Vs Sri… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order rejecting the accused's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW1 for cross-examination and marking of a document. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. disclosed no reasons as to why the document was sought to be marked, or why the recall of PW1 for cross-examination was necessary.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is at the fag end of the trial, there is no warrant for the High Court to interfere with the trial court's order rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶34

Key takeaways

Any document marked in one connected case, if necessary for the defence of the accused, shall be permitted to be taken note of in the other connected cases.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 12954 of 2025 (S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS) disposed by the High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J., 15.10.2025). The petitioner/accused in CC.No.504/2017 (S.138 N.I. Act case) before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Beluru challenged the order dated 23.08.2025 rejecting his application under S.311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW1 for cross-examination and marking of a document. The Court found that the application stated no reasons for marking the document or recalling PW1, and since the trial was at the fag end, declined to interfere with the rejection. However, accepting the submission that common evidence had been led in all connected cases, the Court directed that any document marked in one case, if necessary for the defence of the accused, shall be permitted to be taken note of in the other connected cases.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40944 CRL.P No. 12954 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12954 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MR. ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER, AGE 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 17, II, FLOOR, 4^TH MAIN, IV BLOCK, GORAGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 022.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SURESHA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN. S/O ABDUL AZIZ, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULKODE ESTATE, AREHALLY, BELUR TALUK: HASSAN DISTRICT-573101.

¶14

RAKESH S HARIHAR

¶15

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.10.31 06:27:47 +0000

¶16

ALSO AT NO 58,4^TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN, B.T.M. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560076, REPRESENTED BY ITS P.O.A. HOLDER SRI. SHOAIB UR RAHMAN.

¶17

M/S SA RAWTHER SPICES (1) LIMITED, (GOVT. RECOGNIZED EXPORT HOUSE) NO. 17, 11 FLOOR, 4^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, GORAGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 022, REPRESENTED BY IRP MS.SUBRAMANIAM ANEETHA HERE R-2 IS NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS CASE.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 23.08.2025 PASSED BY

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:40944 CRL.P No. 12954 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BELURU IN CC.NO.504/2017, U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT, WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri.Suresh N., learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

At this juncture, the petitioner/accused is

¶28

before this Court challenging the order rejecting the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The rejection was on the ground that the affidavit seeking the recall of PW1 for cross-examination does not disclose any reasons.

¶29

A perusal of the application clearly indicates that no reasons have been stated as to why the document is sought to be marked, or why the recall of PW1 for crossexamination is necessary.

¶30

The matter is at the fag end of the trial. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant for this Court to

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:40944 CRL.P No. 12954 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

interfere with the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

submits that common evidence has been led, in all the connected cases, and that a document marked, in one case ought to be taken note of in the others. This submission merits acceptance. Therefore, any document marked in one case, if necessary for the defence of the accused, shall be permitted to be taken note of in the other connected cases.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the petition

¶38

stands disposed.

¶39

Ordered accordingly.

¶40

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶41

AC/CT-ASC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v. Sri. Hafeez Ur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther v. Sri. Hafeez Ur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madevi Kom Timmappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayan Ganapayya Gouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrashekhar S/O. Shankrappa Hongalad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther Vs Smt. Dr.Zarina Begum

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther Vs Smt. Nakhat Mubeen @ Nakhat Fathima

Sri. Mr. Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther Vs Sri. Shoaib Ur Rahman