- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29165 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10110 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. GANGADHAR C, S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OFFICE AT INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC- CO. PVT. LTD., NO.5888, PNO.497/A IV PHS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE - 560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. T.S. MOHANA S/O. T.S. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A.NO.16, 'YESHASWINI NILAYA', 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BYREGOWDA LAYOUT, MUDDANA PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 091. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 23.06.2025 IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 311 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29165 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2025 OF CR.PC. IN THE CASE BEARING CC.NO.31961/2021 BY THE XX ACMM, BANGALORE, THEREBY PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO FURTHER CROSS- EXAMINE THE PW1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused assailing the order of the Magistrate passed on an application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent/complainant initiated private complaint proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question was dishonoured sometime in the year 2021. While the complainant has already tendered his evidence, the present petitioner/accused failed to conclude the cross- examination. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29165 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2025 relying on the earlier order dated 04.06.2025, was constrained to record that no further cross-examination was forthcoming from the accused, and the matter was accordingly posted for recording the defence evidence. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking recall of the complainant (P.W.1) for the purpose of further cross-examination. The learned Magistrate, having considered the conduct of the petitioner, rejected the said application. 4. On perusal of the order sheet, it is apparent that the petitioner has not demonstrated due diligence in conducting his defence. The proceedings disclose that multiple adjournments were sought by the petitioner, and despite the leniency shown by the complainant on two earlier occasions wherein applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were allowed without objection,the petitioner once again failed to utilise those opportunities meaningfully. The learned Magistrate, therefore, rightly noted the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29165 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2025 petitioner’s repeated conduct and passed the order dated 04.06.2025 treating the further cross-examination as 'Nil'. 5. Notably, the petitioner has not challenged the said order dated 04.06.2025, by which the further cross- examination of P.W.1 was closed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on two distinct grounds: (i) the petitioner has not called into question the order dated 04.06.2025 which records closure of further cross-examination, and (ii) the petitioner’s conduct clearly indicates an intention to delay the proceedings, as reflected from his failure to cross- examine the complainant on two earlier occasions despite being granted liberty under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. The timeline also reveals that the cross- examination of the complainant has been pending since 27.07.2023 and was prolonged until 04.06.2025. In a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, such unwarranted delay cannot be countenanced. The record does not indicate any valid or compelling reason justifying - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29165 CRL.P No. 10110 of 2025 further indulgence, especially when substantial cross- examination has already been undertaken. Therefore, the present petition does not merit any interference. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merits. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK