- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34223 CRL.P No. 11651 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11651 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MAILAR JAMBANNA S/O MALLAPPA MAILAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KURIHATTI, HYARADA HARAPANAHALLI TQ, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT -583 131 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA., ADV.) AND: M/S CHOLAMANADALAM INVEWSTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED DARE HOUSE NO.2 NSC, BOSE ROAD, PARRYS, CHENNAI 600001 REP BY ITS GPA HOLDER, SRI. THIPPESWAMY.K S/O KARIYAPPA ASSOCIATE LEGAL COORDINATOR, NO.63, 1st FLOOR, 2nd MAIN ROAD, AKKAAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE 577001. …RESPONDENT CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025, ON THE APPLICATION U/S. 311 OF CR.P.C PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34223 CRL.P No. 11651 of 2025 DAVANAGERE IN CC.NO.3312/2023, THERE BY DIRECTING ALLOW THE TRIAL COURT TO PASS AN ORDER FOR RECALLING PW-1 FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AND FOR PASSING OF SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2025, wherein the Court had dismissed the application filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent/complainant has instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of trial, the complainant’s evidence was recorded and the matter was posted for cross-examination. However, the accused/petitioner failed to cross-examine PW.1, and consequently, cross-examination of the complainant came to be recorded as ‘nil’. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34223 CRL.P No. 11651 of 2025 application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The learned Magistrate, taking a lenient view, allowed the said application subject to payment of costs. Even after such indulgence, the petitioner neither paid the costs imposed nor proceeded to cross-examine PW.1, thereby wasting the opportunity granted by the Court. Subsequently, a fresh application was once again filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the complainant. At this stage, the learned Magistrate, having noticed that the petitioner was deliberately adopting dilatory tactics and abusing the process of law, declined to grant further indulgence and rejected the application holding that no case was made out for recalling the complainant. 3. The substance of the private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No. 000003 dated 06.12.2022 for a sum of Rs.6,27,255/-. The said cheque, on being presented for encashment, was dishonoured with the bank endorsement “Drawer’s Signature Differs.” Consequently, statutory notice was issued, and upon failure of the accused to comply with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34223 CRL.P No. 11651 of 2025 demand, the respondent/complainant initiated the present proceedings alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. The records placed before this Court clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunities to cross-examine PW.1. Though cross- examination was initially recorded as ‘nil’, the learned Magistrate, in order to ensure fair opportunity, had permitted recall of PW.1 on an earlier occasion, subject to payment of costs. Despite such leniency, the petitioner neither complied with the condition of payment of costs nor availed the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Instead, the petitioner has chosen to file repeated applications under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which clearly disclose a mala fide intention to proctract and delay the trial proceedings. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in rejecting the second application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. This Court, upon reappraisal of the material on record, finds no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The conduct of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34223 CRL.P No. 11651 of 2025 petitioner does not warrant any further indulgence by this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SSB