M/S. Mediwin Pharma Vs Sri. Prakash. M

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/SEC.528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE OF XXI ACJM COURT AT BANGALORE TO THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.311 OF

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:2646 CRL.P No. 11445 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE D.W.1 IN C.C.NO.27180/2023 DATED 24.03.2025 AS PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner - complainant assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed in C.C.No.27180/2023 by the learned Magistrate on an application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The said application is rejected and therefore, the petitioner - complainant is before this Court assailing the order impugned.

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - complainant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

¶25

On a careful perusal of the records, this Court does notice a certain degree of laxity on the part of the

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:2646 CRL.P No. 11445 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–complainant in not concluding the cross-examination of D.W.1 within the opportunities granted. This lapse has resulted in the learned Magistrate recording that there was no further cross-examination of D.W.1. However, it is equally significant to note that the petitioner has instituted a private complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the cheque amount involved is a substantial sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. Though the statute raises a presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, such presumption is rebuttable and the complainant is entitled, as a matter of fair trial, to effectively cross-examine the accused in order to substantiate his case. In that backdrop, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking recall of D.W.1 for further crossexamination.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:2646 CRL.P No. 11445 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The learned Magistrate has rejected the said application primarily on the ground that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner– complainant and that despite such indulgence, the crossexamination of D.W.1 was not concluded. The learned Magistrate has further proceeded on the premise that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was filed with an intention to protract the proceedings and delay the disposal of the case. While the concern of the learned Magistrate regarding expeditious disposal of cheque bounce cases cannot be faulted, the reasoning adopted requires closer scrutiny in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶34

In proceedings arising out of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the consequences are both civil in nature

¶35

and penal in effect. Given the magnitude of the cheque amount involved and the serious repercussions flowing from a conviction, this Court is of the considered view that

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:2646 CRL.P No. 11445 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the complainant ought not to be denied a reasonable opportunity to fully cross-examine the accused. Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and cannot be elevated to such a pedestal that they defeat the cause of substantive justice. A hyper-technical approach, particularly in matters involving large financial liability, would undermine the fairness of the trial. Though the petitioner–complainant cannot be absolved of responsibility for the earlier lapse, the interest of justice would be better served by permitting one final opportunity to conclude the cross-examination, subject to strict conditions.

¶40

Accordingly, balancing the need to prevent abuse of process with the overarching duty of the Court to ensure a fair trial, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. However, such indulgence must be coupled with imposition of costs and a clear mandate that the cross-examination shall be concluded without fail on the very next date of hearing.

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2646 CRL.P No. 11445 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

This would adequately compensate the respondent– accused for the inconvenience caused and also ensure that

¶45

the proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed in C.C. No.27180/2023 on the file of the learned XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶49

(iii) The petitioner – complainant is permitted to further cross-examine D.W.1 on the next date of hearing.

¶50

(iv) The respondent–accused shall remain present and offer himself for further crossexamination on the said date.

¶51

(v) The petitioner–complainant shall ensure that the further cross-examination of D.W.1 is concluded on the date D.W.1 offers for cross-examination without fail, and it is made explicitly clear that no further adjournment shall

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:2646 CRL.P No. 11445 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

be sought or granted at the instance of the petitioner.

¶56

(vi) The permission granted is subject to the petitioner–complainant paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent–accused on the date D.W.1 offers for cross-examination.

¶57

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶58

NBM

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M/S. Mediwin Pharma v. Sri. Prakash. M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mediwin Pharma v. Sri. Prakash. M

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

Smt K Kalavathi Vs Sri Kuber Singh

Ashwin Mahendra Vs G M Kumar

Mrs S S Soundari Vs Mr Dayananda G v

Smt. Komala, Vs Sri Siddalingadevaru

Praveen G D Vs Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector

Smt. Sakamma Vs Maruvamma