Dismissed¶57

Mahadevaiah v. Shivalingaiah M C

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025CRL.P/2248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of complainant/P.W.1 for further cross-examination under S.311 Cr.P.C. refused — no tenable reason; S.91 Cr.P.C. summons to bank manager for production of complainant's transaction documents refused — necessity unexplained; both rejections by Shivamogga I Addl. Senior Civil Judge/CJM in C.C.No.864/2021 upheld; S.138 NI Act case at post-cross-examination stage; criminal petition (CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022, Karnataka HC, M.I. Arun J., 24-11-2025, NC: 2025:KHC:48446) dismissed; no relief to accused.

What did the court decide?

On the Section 311 application: no tenable reason was assigned by the petitioner as to why PW.1 had to be recalled and cross-examined; a mere statement that he has got some documents does not suffice, and the petitioner failed to specify why further cross-examination was necessary and why it could not be done earlier.

Mahadevaiah Vs Shivalingaiah M C — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Shivamogga in C.C.No.864/2021 rejecting the petitioner's applications under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. should be set aside. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

¶52

Ratio / Principle

On the Section 91 application: the petitioner did not explain why he had to cross-examine the manager of the particular bank sought to be summoned.

¶56

Key takeaways

In view of the above, the trial Court rightly rejected both applications of the petitioner and there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court; hence the petition stands dismissed.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C.) — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun), decided 24.11.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:48446): Accused-petitioner in a pending S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 complaint (C.C.No.864/2021, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Shivamogga), after the complainant's evidence and partial/part cross-examination, applied (i) under S.311 Cr.P.C. to re-open the case from the argument stage and recall P.W.1 (complainant) for further cross-examination, alleging 'material aspects and important points', and (ii) under S.91 Cr.P.C. to direct the Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, Shivamogga Branch to produce the complainant's bank transaction documents and depose. By order dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure-F) the trial Court rejected both applications. Held: no tenable reason was assigned in the S.311 application as to why P.W.1 needed recall — a bare assertion of possessing documents does not suffice, and the applicant did not specify why further cross-examination was required or why it was not feasible earlier; nor did the applicant explain why the summoned bank manager needed to be cross-examined. The trial Court therefore rightly rejected both applications; no error was found in its order and the criminal petition was dismissed. No precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48446 CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2248 OF 2022

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAHADEVAIAH

¶11

S/O MADAIAH

¶12

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶13

DAR ASI POLICE QUARTERS BLOCK TYPE 2D, Q.NO.10 ASHOK NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

SHIVALINGAIAH M.C.

¶19

S/O CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RETAIRED KPC EMPLOYEE PAMPANAGAR, GOPALA SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. SUPREETH SURESH ATHREYAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.K.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.

¶23

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2021

¶24

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48446 CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND CJM COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.864/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 311 OF CR.P.C, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.864/2021.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of proceedings, respondent has let in his evidence and the petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner has made two applications, one under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and another under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, the same reads as under:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:48446 CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

"UNDER SECTION 311 ОF Cr.P.C. THE APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED IS AS FOLLOWS

¶35

1. That the complainant filed the above case against the accused alleging offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶36

2. It is submitted that the complainant has deposed his evidence as P.W.1 and accused side has also conducted cross of P.W.1 in part. But, today the case is posted for arguments on merits.

¶37

3. It is further submitted that the accused having important material aspects by conducting further cross of P.W.1 and important points also end it is very necessary and essential conducting further cross of P.W.1. Under the above reasons, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Re-open the case from the stage of argument to the stage of further cross of P.W.1-complainant recalling the complainant and permit the accused conducting further cross examination in this care as has got material aspects and important points. If this Hon'ble Court is not consider this application, the accused will be put to untold hardship and inconvenience. If the application is consider, no hardship would be caused to other side.

¶38

THEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Re-open the case from the stage of arguments to the stage of further cross examination of P.W.1(CW1) by recalling the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:48446 CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

complainant and permit the accused conducting further cross examination in the above case, allow the application passing suitable orders in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.P.C. THE APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED IS AS FOLLOWS:

¶44

1. That the above case is posted for further proceedings.

¶45

2. It is submitted that, the accused intend to adduce evidence of the witness the Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, Shivamogga Branch in respect of the complainant transacted in that bank end now it is very necessary one essential directing to the manager produce the documents transacted by him and speak about that documents before the court in this case. Under the above reasons the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the Manager, to produce entire documents of the complainant transacted with the aforesaid bank of his account and depose evidence before the court in this case. If the application is not consider, the accused will be put to untold hardship and inconvenience.

¶46

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Shivamogga as details stated in the witness list enclosed along with this application came before the court and depose evidence then produce the documents

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48446 CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

transacted by the complainant, allow the application in the ends of justice."

¶50

The trial Court has rejected both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶51

"WHEREFORE it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court Shivamogga, in C.C.No.864/2021 vide Annexure-"F" and allow the application under Section 91 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the Petitioner before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court Shivamogga, in C.C.No.864/2021, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶52

As can be seen from the application filed under Section 311, the same is filed to further cross-examine PW.1. No tenable reason is assigned by the petitioner in the application as to why PW.1 has to be recalled and crossexamined. A mere statement that he has got some documents and that necessitates further cross-examination of PW.1 does not suffice. He has to specify why he has to further crossexamine PW.1 and why he was not able to do so on earlier occasions. The same has not been done.

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48446 CRL.P No. 2248 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.,

¶56

the petitioner has not explained why he has to cross-examine the manager of a particular bank which he is sought to summon.

¶57

Under the circumstances, in my opinion the trial Court has rightly rejected both the applications of the petitioner. I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the petition stands dismissed .

¶58

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶59

PGG

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Mahadevaiah v. Shivalingaiah M C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevaiah v. Shivalingaiah M C

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. Mubashira Taj Vs State O Karnataka

K P Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vismitha Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadevaiah @ Mahadevappa Vs M P Nagaraj

Sri. Arvind Kambar Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Vishwanath K, Vs State of Karnataka