- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14869 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4930 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DASTHAGIRI SAB, S/O SRI. N. ABDULKUDDUSH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 114/1, SHAHTAJ RESIDENCY, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, NEAR SHOBA LAKE VIEW-CLUB HOUSE, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K. GOPAL REDDY, S/O P. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO 96/6/8, OM SHAKTHI NILAYA, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 103. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXVItH ACMM DATED 03.02.2025, PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED U/S.311 OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.24400/2022 AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW 1 IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14869 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for further cross- examination was rejected. 2. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheque issued towards repayment of the advance sale consideration in relation to a sale transaction was dishonoured for want of funds. 3. During the cross-examination of PW.1, he is said to have stated that it was his son who had negotiated the sale transaction. After the cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner filed an application seeking to summon the son of PW.1 for examination. 4. However, the said application was rejected. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed an application to recall PW.1 in order to further elicit details regarding the alleged sale transaction. The Trial Court rejected this application as well. PW.1 had admitted that the transaction was negotiated by his son. Since the application to summon the son was rejected, the petitioner ought to have been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14869 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2025 granted an opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1. 5. In the interest of ensuring a fair trial, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it would be appropriate to afford the petitioner one more opportunity to further cross-examine PW.1. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the XXXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.24400/2022 on the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside and the application is allowed. ii. The petitioner is permitted to further cross- examination of PW.1 on the date of which he is summoned, failing which the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT: BHK