- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10511 CRL.P No. 8582 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8582 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI M L THULSIDHARA S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/AT NO.419, 9TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, MANDYA CITY-571401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARUNYA (FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN) (AGE NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR) HIGH SCHOOL HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, CHIKKA MANDYA, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-II, MANDYA, REJECTING THE IA NO.5 FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. ON 29.06.2024 IN C.C.NO.324/2021 AND ALLOW IA-5. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10511 CRL.P No. 8582 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. After the evidence of the complainant was completed, the matter was set for defense evidence. The accused cross-examined himself as DW-1, and despite granting sufficient opportunity to the complainant, the complainant did not choose to cross-examine DW-1; therefore, the cross-examination of DW-1 was recorded as “nil.” 2. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking the recall of DW-1 for cross- examination. However, that application was rejected, which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. The respondent, although served with notice, did not choose to appear in person or through counsel; therefore, the proceedings against him are being conducted ex parte. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. 5. It is submitted that, despite being given sufficient opportunity, the petitioner-complainant did not cross-examine DW-1 without any valid reason. Consequently, the Trial Court had no alternative but to reject the application for recalling DW-1 for cross-examination. If the petitioner-complainant is not permitted to cross-examine DW-1, his testimony will - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10511 CRL.P No. 8582 of 2024 remain unchallenged, which may, in all probability, result in the acquittal of the accused. 6. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine DW-1, no prejudice will be caused to the accused. Under these circumstances, the petitioner- complainant is entitled to one more opportunity to cross- examine DW-1. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following orders: ORDER i) Criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Mandya, in C.C.No.324/2021 is hereby set aside and consequently, the application I.A.No.V filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. iii) The petitioner is permitted to cross examine DW-1 on the date on which he would be summoned, failing which, the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90