Dismissed¶184

Sri. Dr. S. B. Vikram v. Sri. B. Venkatesh

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025CRL.P/15913/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 Cr.P.C.; recall of witness; further cross-examination; PW-1; PW-2; Section 138 N.I. Act; cheque dishonour; belated/afterthought application; delay at arguments stage; abuse of process; XVI ACMM Bengaluru; CC.Nos. 9439, 11573, 7322, 11572, 11574, 11571, 9559, 7320, 9438, 16058 of 2018; CRL.P No. 15913/2025 c/w 9 others; Mohammad Nawaz J.; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature and is to be exercised with caution and circumspection, only for strong and valid reasons. ¶170

Sri. Dr. S. B. Vikram Vs Sri. B. Venkatesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶184

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 11.11.2025 rejecting the accused's applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 should be set aside/quashed +1 more

¶149

Court's answer

PW-1 and PW-2 were thoroughly cross-examined by the accused; after cross-examination the accused's statement was recorded and he was afforded opportunity to lead defence evidence, which was completed.

¶179

Ratio / Principle

The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature and is to be exercised with caution and circumspection, only for strong and valid reasons.

¶170

Key takeaways

The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised if the Court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of process of law.ratio¶170
After the complainant's arguments, when the matter was posted for the accused's arguments, he took several adjournments, engaged another counsel, and only thereafter filed the applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 and 2.ratio¶180
There is no error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the applications filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; accordingly the petitions are dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petitions under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS dismissed (Mohammad Nawaz, J., High Court of Karnataka, 09.12.2025). Ten petitions by Dr. S.B. Vikram and Rathi Vikram (accused) challenged orders dated 11.11.2025 of the XVI ACMM, Bengaluru rejecting their applications under S.311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 in cheque-dishonour cases under S.138 N.I. Act pending at the arguments stage. Held: the S.311 power is discretionary, to be exercised with caution and circumspection only for strong and valid reasons, and not where the application is an abuse of process; PW-1 and PW-2 had been thoroughly cross-examined, the s.313 statement recorded, defence evidence completed, and the complainant's arguments concluded on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025; the accused then sought repeated adjournments (04.08.2025 to 06.11.2025), engaged new counsel on 18.09.2025, and filed the recall applications only on 06.11.2025 in cases more than seven years old. No error or illegality found in the impugned orders; petitions dismissed. Whether the accused admitted signing the cheques and the letter dated 12.08.2017 is left to the trial Court.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15913 OF 2025

¶9

C/W

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15916 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15919 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15922 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15928 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15933 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15935 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15946 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15979 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15991 OF 2025

¶11

IN CRL.P No. 15913/2025

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

SRI. DR. S.B. VIKRAM S/O. DR. S. BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT # 46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE - 570 012.

¶15

&PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI. B. VENKATESH S/O. LATE B.K. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. # 404, GANGOTRI PRESIDENCY, 10^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶22

&RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.9439/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶25

IN CRL.P NO. 15916/2025

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. DR. S.B. VIKRAM S/O. DR. S. BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT # 46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE - 570 012.

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI. B. VENKATESH S/O. LATE B.K. RAMAN,

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. # 404, GANGOTRI PRESIDENCY, 10^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶36

...RESPONDENT

¶37

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶38

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1111-2025 PASSED BY XVI ACJM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11573/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶39

IN CRL.P NO. 15919/2025

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SMT. RATHI VIKRAM W/O. S.B VIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE-570 012.

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

SRI. B. VENKATESH S/O. LATE B.K. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. #404, GANGOTRI PRESIDENCY, 10^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

REP BY ITS GPA HOLDER NAGARAJA RAO SHESHADRI

¶49

...RESPONDENT

¶50

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶51

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACJM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.7322/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶52

IN CRL.P NO. 15922/2025

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

SMT. RATHI VIKRAM W/O. S.B VIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE-570 012.

¶55

...PETITIONER

¶56

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶57

AND:

¶58

SRI. B. VENKATESH S/O. LATE B.K. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. #404, GANGOTRI PRESIDENCY, 10^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶59

...RESPONDENT

¶60

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶61

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11572/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶64

IN CRL.P NO. 15928/2025

¶65

BETWEEN:

¶66

SRI. DR. S.B. VIKRAM S/O. DR. S.BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE-570 012.

¶67

...PETITIONER

¶68

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶69

AND:

¶70

SRI. B. VENKATESH S/O. LATE B.K. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. #404, GANGOTRI PRESIDENCY, 10^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶71

...RESPONDENT

¶72

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶73

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU IN

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶75

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

C.C.NO.11574/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTON 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶78

IN CRL.P NO. 15933/2025

¶79

BETWEEN:

¶80

SMT. RATHI VIKRAM W/O. DR. S.B.VIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012.

¶81

...PETITIONER

¶82

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶83

AND:

¶84

SRI. B. VENKATESH S/O. LATE B.K. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. #404, GANGOTRI PRESIDENCY, 10^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶85

...RESPONDENT

¶86

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶87

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACJM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11571/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶88

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

IN CRL.P NO. 15935/2025

¶92

BETWEEN:

¶93

SMT. RATHI VIKRAM W/O DR. S.B. VIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE-570 012.

¶94

...PETITIONER

¶95

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶96

AND:

¶97

SMT. NALINI SHESHADRI W/O NAGARAJA RAO SHESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT # D 2001, MANTRI SERENITY, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA PO., BENGALURU-560 062.

¶98

...RESPONDENT

¶99

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶100

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.9559/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶102

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

IN CRL.P NO. 15946/2025

¶105

BETWEEN:

¶106

SMT. RATHI VIKRAM W/O DR. S.B. VIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, MYSORE-570 012.

¶107

...PETITIONER

¶108

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶109

AND:

¶110

SMT. NALINI SHESHADRI W/O N. SHESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT # D 2001, MANTRI SERENITY, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA PO., BENGALURU-560 062.

¶111

...RESPONDENT

¶112

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶113

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.7320/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AND MAY PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW-1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶114

IN CRL.P NO. 15979/2025

¶115

BETWEEN:

¶116

SRI. DR. S.B. VIKRAM S/O. DR. S. BHASKAR,

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶118

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012.

¶121

...PETITIONER

¶122

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶123

AND:

¶124

SMT. NALINI SHESHADRI W/O. N. SHESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT. # D 2001, MANTRI SERENITY, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA PO., BENGALURU-560 062. REPT BY GPA HOLDER MR. NAGARAJ RAO SHESHADRI.

¶125

...RESPONDENT

¶126

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶127

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.9438/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW1 AND PW-2/ RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶128

IN CRL.P NO. 15991/2025

¶129

BETWEEN:

¶130

SRI.DR. S.B. VIKRAM S/O DR. S. BHASKAR,

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶132

10 -

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT #46, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE 570 020. ALSO AT: NO.11, TEMPLE ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012.

¶135

...PETITIONER

¶136

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶137

AND:

¶138

SMT. NALINI SHESHADRI W/O. N. SHESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT. # D 2001, MANTRI SERENITY, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA PO., BENGALURU-560 062. REPT BY GPA HOLDER, MR. NAGARAJA RAO SHESHADRI.

¶139

...RESPONDENT

¶140

(BY SRI. P. CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶141

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.16058/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW1 AND PW-2/RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

¶142

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

¶143

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶146

ORAL ORDER

¶147

In all these petitions, parties are one and the same. Petitioners are the accused and respondent is the complainant, before the trial Court.

¶148

The learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2025, has rejected the applications filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in all the petitions.

¶149

Petitioners are seeking to set aside the impugned orders and to allow them to further cross-examine PW1/respondent, and PW2.

¶150

All these petitions arise out of the same issue, wherein the proceedings are initiated before the trial Court by the respondent/complainant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by the accused. The matter before the trial Court is at the stage of arguments.

¶151

12 -

¶152

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶153

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, while preparing for final arguments, it came to light that certain crucial questions concerning the letter dated 12.08.2017 and the very authority of PW-1 to depose had not been put to the witnesses during earlier crossexamination and these questions go to the root of the matter and are vital for eliciting the truth, as they directly touch upon the core issues in dispute. It is submitted that

¶154

sworn statement of PW1 was treated as examination-in-chief and PW-1 was subsequently cross-examined; thereafter the petitioner9s evidence was completed and the matter was posted for arguments.

¶155

During preparation for arguments, upon receiving instructions, counsel noticed that these essential questions were inadvertently left out despite being necessary to establish the petitioner9s defence. Therefore, an application was immediately filed to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for limited further cross-examination. However, the trial court, without appreciating the crux of the application or

¶156

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 AND 7 OTHERS

¶157

13 -

¶158

HC-KAR

¶159

the relevance of the proposed questions, mechanically rejected the same.

¶160

It is further contended that the omission was identified only at the stage of preparing for final arguments, and the settled legal position recognizes that even at the appellate stage, the Court may permit additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. when required to uncover the truth. Hence, the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the recall sought under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was neither to fill lacunae nor to introduce any new material, but only to confront PW-1 and PW-2 with a document already on record and to test PW-19s competency to depose both being matters essential for a just decision.

¶161

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that any application seeking recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must clearly and specifically state the reasons necessitating such recall, and a party cannot be permitted

¶162

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶163

to rely on vague or generalized grounds to reopen evidence. He contended that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as a tool to protract the proceedings or to fill up lacunae in the defence at a belated stage of the trial, especially after the matter has progressed to the stage of arguments. The power under Section 311 is discretionary and intended solely to ensure that the ends of justice are met, and therefore must be exercised with great caution and circumspection and in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any compelling reason for recalling PW-1 and PW-2, and hence the trial court has rightly rejected the application.

¶164

Insofar as the prayer of the petitioners to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 (complainant) and PW-2 is concerned, it is noted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 11.11.2025, has rejected the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., assigning detailed reasons for such rejection.

¶165

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶166

The learned Magistrate has observed that the

¶167

complainant has instituted ten cases against the accused arising out of the same transaction, and Ex.P1 to P10, including the letter dated 12.08.2017, were produced along with the sworn statement at the inception of the proceedings. The complaint contains specific pleadings with regard to the said letter, and the document has been part of the record from the beginning in all connected cases. PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-examined on several dates after the accused took multiple adjournments. The defence evidence was also completed and the complainant9s arguments on merits were concluded on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025. Thereafter, the accused again sought four adjournments to address final arguments, and only during this prolonged stage the present application came to be filed. It is further observed that the case is more than seven years old, the accused has admittedly signed the letter dated 12.08.2017 as well as the cheques in question, and the complainant4being a

¶168

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶169

senior citizen4has been compelled to undergo prolonged litigation. The learned Magistrate has therefore concluded that the present application is an afterthought, intended merely to delay the proceedings, and thus refused to entertain the same.

¶170

The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature, however to be exercised with caution and circumspection, only for strong and valid reasons. Though the Court has wide power to recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the Court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of process of law.

¶171

The letter dated 12.8.2017, relied by the complainant has been marked in each case as exhibit. From the records, it is seen that PW-1 had led his chief-

¶172

NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶173

17 -

¶174

examination on 20.03.2018 and 20.08.2019, and was thereafter fully cross-examined by the accused on 10.07.2023 and 21.09.2023. Likewise, PW-2 lead his chief-examination on 07.11.2023 and 12.12.2023 and was fully cross-examined on 29.01.2024. Subsequent to the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the defence evidence was also led. DW-1 was examined on 01.07.2024 and was fully cross-examined on 01.07.2024 and 28.02.2025. After the complainant9s counsel concluded arguments on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, the matter was posted for the accused arguments. However,

¶175

the accused sought repeated adjournments on 04.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 18.09.2025, 10.10.2025 and 06.11.2025. It is also evident from the order sheet that on 18.09.2025, the accused engaged a new counsel who filed No-Objection Vakalatnama and sought further time to address arguments. Even thereafter, adjournments were sought on 10.10.2025 and 06.11.2025, and on the latter

¶176

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶177

date the present applications to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for

¶178

further cross-examination came to be filed.

¶179

The material on record reveals that PW1 and PW2 were thoroughly cross-examined by the accused. After cross-examination of the witnesses, the statement of

¶180

the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused was afforded opportunity to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, he was fully cross-examined. After the arguments of the complainant, when the matter was posted for the arguments of the accused he took several adjournments. The accused engaged another counsel and sought further time. Thereafter, filed the applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 and 2.

¶181

The accused was granted sufficient time and he has cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 and thereafter he has lead evidence on his behalf. In fact, it is the contention of the respondent9s counsel that in the cross-examination, the accused has admitted the issuance of and signatures on the cheques and also the signatures on letter dated

¶182

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:52886 CRL.P No. 15913 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 15916 of 2025 CRL.P No. 15919 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶183

12.8.2017. The said aspect, though has to be decided by

¶184

the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the applications filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.

¶185

The observations made in the order are

¶186

confined to the disposal of this petition.

¶187

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶188

¶189

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Sri. Dr. S. B. Vikram v. Sri. B. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dr. S. B. Vikram v. Sri. B. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hemavathi Vs State by Jalahalli Police Station

Kiran Kumar Cb Vs State of Karnataka by Psi

Mr. Nagaraj C R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suraj Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Dilip @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vasvi K K Vs State by Panchanahalli P S