- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1667 CRL.P No. 200481 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200481 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. ROBERT PAUL S/O WILIAM JEMS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST AND HEADMASTER, MOUNT CARMELA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, GURUGUNTA, R/O R.C.M. CHURCH GURUGUNTA VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K. MOHAN S/O K. SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASAVARAJESHWARI CAMP, SINDHANUR, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. …RESPONDENT (V/O DTD 18.03.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED IN C.C NO.5000/2022 (ARISING OUT OF Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1667 CRL.P No. 200481 of 2025 PC NO. 141/2022) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND TO PASS OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5000/2022 (arising out of PC No.141/2022) on the file of the II. Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur (for short ‘Trial Court’) for the offences under Section 138 of N.I. Act, and under Section 420 of IPC. Brief facts of the case: 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in C.C.No.5000/2022 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur filed for recalling the accused for further examination under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has been rejected. The Trial Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1667 CRL.P No. 200481 of 2025 has passed the order in detail by mentioning the dates and events. Further, the Trial Court also opined that DW- 1/accused deliberately and intentionally remained absent and not led further defence evidence. Therefore, the said application has been rejected. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is pending since 2022. The petitioner herein had filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking for recalling the witnesses, who are the material witnesses to the case and their evidence is very much necessary for the purpose of having fair trial. 4. It is further submitted that if the said application is not allowed, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and it cannot be compensated in terms of money. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition by setting aside the order of the Trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the said submission and he prays to reject the petition on the ground that the petitioner had availed sufficient opportunities to lead the evidence and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1667 CRL.P No. 200481 of 2025 therefore, intentionally failed to lead the evidence. Hence, it is not appropriate to allow the application. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also the order of the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the witnesses, it appears from the order that the petitioner herein being an accused had availed sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence. In fact, the application for leading defence evidence was allowed on payment of cost and thereafter, he led his evidence and the matter was posted for argument. At that stage, he filed an application and he wanted to lead further defence evidence. 7. Be that as it may, no doubt, in order to sustain the object of fair trial, opportunity must be given to the parties to lead their respective evidence. However, that may not be the tool for adjournment or postponement of the proceedings. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, it is appropriate to grant one more opportunity to lead the additional - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1667 CRL.P No. 200481 of 2025 evidence. However, the petitioner is directed to bring the witnesses or lead further evidence within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order by the Trial Court. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. ii. The Trial Court is directed to insist the receipt for having paid the cost of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, notices may be issued to the witnesses, whom he proposed. iii. The order dated 13.02.2025 passed in C.C.No.5000/2022 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur, is hereby set aside. iv. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court forthwith. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1667 CRL.P No. 200481 of 2025 In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:PK