Allowed¶24

Sri Sanjay M v. Sri Vinay v

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2025CRL.P/4783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjay M M v. Vinay V; CRL.P No. 4783 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice Hemant Chandangoudar; decided 22.04.2025; Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall PW-1 for cross-examination; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour case; fair trial Article 21 Constitution; impugned order dated 17.01.2025 in C.C. No. 3714/2021 by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Davanagere quashed; one more opportunity to cross-examine complainant witness; filed u/s 482 Cr.PC / 528 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.01.2025 quashed; application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1 for cross-examination allowed; petitioner permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on the date on which he is summoned, failing which the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. ¶24

Sri Sanjay M Vs Sri Vinay v — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1 for cross-examination should be quashed so as to afford the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 in the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution.

¶21

Court's answer

If the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine PW-1, the testimony of PW-1 remains uncontroverted and could potentially result in conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; to ensure a fair trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed on the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in C.C. No. 3714/2021 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, is hereby quashed, and the application is allowed.

¶24

Key takeaways

The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on the date on which he is summoned, failing which the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition (filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS) by the accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case allowed. The order dated 17.01.2025 of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere in C.C. No. 3714/2021 rejecting his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall PW-1 (complainant) for cross-examination - rejected on the ground that the application sought to protract the proceedings - was quashed. Holding that denial of cross-examination would leave PW-1's testimony uncontroverted and risk conviction, and to ensure a fair trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, one more opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 was granted, failing which the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:16690 CRL.P No. 4783 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4783 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SANJAY M M SON OF MANOHAR V AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ARYA VAISHYA VAIDIKA BHAVANA BEHIND KANNIKA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, MALLESHWARAM, 8TH CROSS, BENGALURU 560 003.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SRI VINAY V

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SON OF C.V. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O D.NO549/1, 3RD MAIN, 13TH MAIN, RESIDENT OF 1ST MAIN, K.T.J. NAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025, ON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. PASSSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.3714 OF 2021 THERE BY DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO PASS AN ORDER FOR RECALLING PW-1 FOR CROSS EXAMINATION.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:16690 CRL.P No. 4783 of 2025

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to recall PW-1 for cross-examination was rejected.

¶22

The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the examination-in-chief of PW-1 (the complainant), the matter was set down for crossexamination. However, the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine PW-1 without assigning any valid reason, prompting the Trial Court to post the matter for final arguments. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to recall PW-1 for cross-examination. The said application was rejected on the ground that it was filed to protract the proceedings. If the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine PW-1, the testimony of PW-1 remains uncontroverted, which could potentially result in the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To ensure a fair trial, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it would be appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16690 CRL.P No. 4783 of 2025

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed on the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C. No. 3714/2021 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, is hereby quashed, and the application is allowed.

¶25

The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on the date on which he is summoned, failing which the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶28

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 137

Sri Sanjay M v. Sri Vinay v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjay M v. Sri Vinay v

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

Dr. S. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

G Raghu Achar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha K @ Manjunathareddy Vs State of Karnataka

G H Halappa Vs State of Karnataka

Siddarudha.M.J @ Sathish Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka