- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1329 CRL.P No. 200384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200384 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MAHANTESH S/O SOMASHEKARGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. #673, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, A-BLOCK, VINAYAK NAGAR, BANGALORE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADV.) AND: SRI RAMASWAMY S/O PARASHURAM INGALE, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. KAKKAYYA COLONY, GYANGBOWDI, VIJAYPUR - 586101 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, . PRAYING TO, QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-III, VIJAYAPUR ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C TO RECALL PW-1 FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION IN .C.C NO. 1321/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1329 CRL.P No. 200384 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, is filed by the accused with a prayer to set aside the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Vijayapura, in C.C.No.1321/2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application and the impugned order has resulted in denial of fair trial. He submits that the cross-examination of the complainant (PW-1) with regard to his custody of the cheque in question, has not been made. It is only under the said circumstance, the application under Section 311 Cr.PC was filed. He submits that the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application with exemplary costs. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1329 CRL.P No. 200384 of 2025 3. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the petitioner is facing prosecution before the Trial Court of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the said proceedings, complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and he has been extensively cross-examined on behalf of the defence on two different dates. During the course of further cross-examination of PW-1, he has been cross-examined on the aspect of custody of the cheque in question with him. 4. The only ground urged in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.PC to permit the petitioner to further cross- examine the complainant (PW-1) was that he had not cross- examined PW-1 on this aspect of the matter, but the Trial Court having perused the cross-examination of PW-1 has recorded a categorical finding that on the aspect of the cheque in question reaching the hands of the complainant, he has been specifically cross-examined by the defence, and it is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC. Undisputedly, the said application was filed at the stage of arguments on behalf of the defence. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1329 CRL.P No. 200384 of 2025 5. The material on record would go to show that petitioner had not filed any similar application earlier, nor there is any observation that the petitioner has been making attempts to delay the proceedings and repeated applications are filed by him. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner. Therefore, to that extent, the order impugned is bad. Accordingly, the following order: 6. Petition is allowed in part. The order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.1321/2016 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC is confirmed, and the said order to the extent it relates to imposing costs of Rs.5,000/-, is set aside. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK