Allowed¶25

Dasthagiri Sab v. Sri.K. Gopal Reddy

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2025CRL.P/4930/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025 (decided 04.04.2025, Hemant Chandangoudar J.): Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall of witness; further cross-examination of PW.1 allowed in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour case C.C.No.24400/2022; PW.1 admitted son negotiated sale transaction; application to summon son rejected; fair trial under Article 21; impugned ACMM order dated 03.02.2025 set aside; petition filed under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.02.2025 of the XXXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.24400/2022 set aside; application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed; petitioner permitted to further cross-examine PW.1 on the date he is summoned, failing which the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. ¶25

Dasthagiri Sab Vs Sri.K. Gopal Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination in C.C.No.24400/2022 ought to be set aside and the petitioner permitted to further cross-examine PW.1.

¶16

Court's answer

Since PW.1 had admitted that the transaction was negotiated by his son, and the application to summon the son was rejected, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of ensuring a fair trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is appropriate to afford the petitioner one more opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1.

¶23

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed in C.C.No.24400/2022 is set aside, the Section 311 application is allowed, and the petitioner is permitted to further cross-examine PW.1, failing which the trial court is to proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025) under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS: Order dated 03.02.2025 of the XXXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.24400/2022 (private complaint u/S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act) rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination, set aside. Held: PW.1 having admitted during cross-examination that the sale transaction was negotiated by his son, and the application to summon the son having been rejected, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1; in the interest of a fair trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, one more opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1 was afforded. Application under Section 311 allowed; failing further cross-examination on the summoned date, the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14869 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4930 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DASTHAGIRI SAB, S/O SRI. N. ABDULKUDDUSH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 114/1, SHAHTAJ RESIDENCY, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, NEAR SHOBA LAKE VIEW-CLUB HOUSE, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. K. GOPAL REDDY, S/O P. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO 96/6/8, OM SHAKTHI NILAYA, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶12

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXVItH ACMM DATED 03.02.2025, PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED U/S.311 OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.24400/2022 AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW 1 IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE.

¶13

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14869 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further crossexamination was rejected.

¶17

The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheque issued towards repayment of the advance sale consideration in relation to a sale transaction was dishonoured for want of funds.

¶18

During the cross-examination of PW.1, he is said to have stated that it was his son who had negotiated the sale transaction. After the cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner filed an application seeking to summon the son of PW.1 for examination.

¶19

However, the said application was rejected. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed an application to recall PW.1 in order to further elicit details regarding the alleged sale transaction. The Trial Court rejected this application as well. PW.1 had admitted that the transaction was negotiated by his son. Since the application to summon the son was rejected, the petitioner ought to have been

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:14869 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025

¶22

granted an opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1.

¶23

In the interest of ensuring a fair trial, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it would be appropriate to afford the petitioner one more opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the XXXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.24400/2022 on the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside and the application is allowed.

¶26

ii. The petitioner is permitted to further crossexamination of PW.1 on the date of which he is summoned, failing which the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶27

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶28

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT: BHK

¶29

TIN

Dasthagiri Sab v. Sri.K. Gopal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasthagiri Sab v. Sri.K. Gopal Reddy

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

Raghav Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Harsha Vs State of Karnataka

Nitish Kashyap Vs State by Mahadevpura P. S.

Mrs Roshella D Costa Vs Mr. Ashwin Correa

Nagendra Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka