- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6254 CRL.P No. 1698 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1698 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DONALD J D’SOUZA S/O GREGORY D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT IMMANUEL VILLA, ARKULA BAIL, FARANGIPET, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT-574143 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GRAZY GRETTA D’SOUZA W/O VINCENT J GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.297, NANDANA MALLARMADI, DHARMASTHALA, D.K.DISTRICT-574216 REP. BY GPA HOLDER, JOSEPH ADOLPHUS D’SOUZA. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1452/2021 BY THE JMFC V COURT, D.K. MANGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6254 CRL.P No. 1698 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: "Quash the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed in C.C.No.1452/2021 passed by the JMFC V Court D.K. Mangaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and dismiss the subject application as prayed". 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1452/2021 filed by the respondent – complainant against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After completion of evidence of both sides, the respondent – complainant filed the instant applications under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C. seeking reopening of the case and for permission to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner – accused, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the applications on the ground that the additional evidence - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6254 CRL.P No. 1698 of 2025 sought to be adduced by the respondent was relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and since no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who would be entitled to cross-examine the respondent in relation to the proposed additional evidence sought to be adduced by the respondent, the said applications deserved to be allowed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner – accused is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the applications filed by the respondent – complainant, objections filed by the petitioner – accused and the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the respondent, establishes that the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to the correct and proper conclusion that the proposed additional evidence sought to be adduced by the respondent – complainant was relevant, essential, material and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. It is also relevant to state that apart from the fact that the petitioner – accused would be entitled to cross-examine the respondent in relation to the proposed additional evidence, the petitioner would also be entitled to adduce further - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6254 CRL.P No. 1698 of 2025 rebuttal evidence in support of his defence, if so advised; so also, all rival contentions as regards admissibility, proof, relevance, probative value, etc., in relation to the additional evidence would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the proceedings. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner nor can the impugned order be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition, which is liable to be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is however made clear that all rival contentions as regards admissibility, proof, relevance, probative value, etc., in relation to the additional evidence would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the proceedings and no opinion is expressed on the same. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6254 CRL.P No. 1698 of 2025 (iii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to adduce rebuttal evidence, if so advised. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AN / SV