Smt. Umadevi v. M/S Fortitude Constructions

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026CRL.P/16277/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC recall/further cross-examination application rejection quashed; Section 482 CrPC petition filed under Section 528 BNSS; Section 138 NI Act complaint C.C.No.8977/2019 before XVI Addl. CMM Bengaluru; one final opportunity for cross-examination on 27-02-2026 without adjournment; 4-week conclusion timeline; Umadevi v. Fortitude Constructions; Karnataka High Court 2026; M. Nagaprasanna J.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; impugned order dated 17-11-2025 quashed; application under Section 311 CrPC allowed with one opportunity to conclude further cross-examination of the complainant on 27-02-2026; concerned Court directed to conclude proceedings within 4 weeks from 27-02-2026; I.A.No.1 of 2025 disposed. ¶¶40

Smt. Umadevi Vs M/S Fortitude Constructions — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.11.2025 of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8977/2019, rejecting the petitioner/accused's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW.1/complainant, should be set aside.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The petitioner is granted one opportunity, on a day to be fixed by the concerned Court, for further cross-examination of the complainant, it being the only such opportunity, and the further cross-examination shall be concluded on the same day without seeking any adjournment.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 17-11-2025 passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8977 of 2019 stands quashed.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

The application filed under Section 311 CrPC is allowed and the petitioner shall conclude further cross-examination of the complainant on 27-02-2026, the next date of listing before the concerned Court.ratio¶¶42
The concerned Court shall conclude the proceedings within 4 weeks from 27-02-2026 in accordance with law.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M. Nagaprasanna, J., 06.02.2026), CRL.P No. 16277 of 2025 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (filed under Section 528 BNSS): Petitioner/accused in C.C.No.8977/2019, a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case, challenged the order dated 17.11.2025 of the XVI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru rejecting her Section 311 Cr.P.C. application for further cross-examination of PW.1/complainant, filed six years after commencement of proceedings; respondent's counsel conceded it was the first such application. Held: impugned order quashed; one final opportunity granted — further cross-examination of the complainant to be concluded on 27-02-2026 without adjournment; trial court directed to conclude proceedings within 4 weeks from 27-02-2026.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7483 CRL.P No. 16277 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16277 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. UMADEVI, W/O RAJANNA J., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, GOPALAKRISHNA LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU – 560 061.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

M/S FORTITUDE CONSTRUCTIONS, NO. 50-12/1, SRI. VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, DR.VISHNUVARDHNA ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU – 560 061. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. N. KISHORE KUMAR, S/O NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. MAYUR D.BHANU, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7483 CRL.P No. 16277 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025 THAT IS REJECTED THE RECALL APPLICATION U/S.311 OF CR.P.C., FILED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XVI ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.8977/2019.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court which rejects the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking further cross-examination of PW.1/complainant.

¶25

Heard Sri Raghavendra A.V., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Mayur D Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:7483 CRL.P No. 16277 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The petitioner is the accused, respondent the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads the complainant to the concerned Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue nonetheless is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The issue is with regard to an application that the petitioner/accused files 6 years after the commencement of the proceedings.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was the first in line and should not have been rejected by the concerned Court on the score that it is only to drag the proceedings or there are no reasons in the application.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent though would put up vehement opposition for entertainment of the petition, would admit the fact that it was the first application that is filed.

¶32

In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner on a particular day that the concerned Court would fix, making it clear that it would be the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:7483 CRL.P No. 16277 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

only opportunity to the petitioner for further cross-examination of the complainant. The further cross-examination shall be concluded on the same day without seeking any adjournment.

¶37

In the light of the issue being of the year 2019 in C.C.No.8977 of 2019, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within 4 weeks from the date of cross-examination of the parties.

¶38

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) Impugned order dated 17-11-2025 passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8977 of 2019 stands quashed.

¶42

(iii) The application filed under Section 311 of the CrPC is allowed. The petitioner shall conclude further cross-examination of the complainant on 27-02-2026 itself, since it is the next date of listing before the concerned Court.

¶43