Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21900 (KAR)

MR.N. SATISH GOWDA v. SRI.T.S RANGARAJU

CRL.P/4194/2025 · 2025-03-26

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13048 CRL.P No. 4194 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4194 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MR.N. SATISH GOWDA S/O N.SHIVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS HR EXECUTIVE HCC PVT LTD., NO. 214, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, HEBBAL MYSORE-570016. AND ALSO R/AT OPP MAHALAKSHMI -SCHOOL, MOGARAHALLY VILLAGE, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 KRS ROAD, HOSAHALLY POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.T.S RANGARAJU S/O SAMPANGIRAMA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.3366, 1ST MAIN, CHAMPAK MANSION, P.C EXTENSION, KOLAR-563 101 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13048 CRL.P No. 4194 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR, IN C.C.NO.927/2018 DATED 31.08.2024, BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION U/S 311 OF THE CR.P.C., FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the trial court’s order rejecting an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to recall Prosecution Witnesses 1 and 2 (PWs.1 and 2) for further cross-examination in a case involving an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). 2. After the initial cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, the case proceeded to the defense evidence stage. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application to recall these witnesses, asserting the need to suggest certain material facts. The trial court denied this application. 3. Upon hearing the arguments from both parties, it is determined that there is no sufficient ground to recall PW1. However, the petitioner has demonstrated a prima - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13048 CRL.P No. 4194 of 2025 facie case to recall PW2, who was allegedly present during the transaction between the complainant and the accused. 4. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 31.08.2024 in C.C. No. 927/2018, passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar, is set aside to the extent that it rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW2 for further cross-examination. The petitioner is permitted to further cross-examine PW2 on the date he is summoned; failure to do so will result in the trial court proceeding in accordance with the law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35