- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4472 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. TEJA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O KRISHNA KUMAR.J.D., R/AT DODDAKUNDA VILLAGE, KUDLIPETE POST, SOMVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT -571235 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJA A.T., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. RAVISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O RUDRAPPA, R/ AT DODDAKUNDA VILLAGE, KUDLIPETE POST, SOMVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT -571235. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KANTEPPA HULEPPA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.PC IN C.C.NO.331/2023, DATED 15.01.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JMFC V COURT D.K.MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15.01.2025 by which an application filed by the respondent under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. comes to be allowed. 2. Heard Sri.Jayaraja A.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Kanteppa Huleppa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent-the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads the complainant to the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025 3.2. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the complainant or the defence of the petitioner- the accused. 3.3. The application is filed by the complainant seeking himself to be examined in the matter by way of examination-in- chief. The petitioner-accused claims to be aggrieved by the said allowing of the application. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused submits that to get over the questions that are posed in the cross-examination, the complainant wants to examine himself all over again. The concerned Court could not have allowed the application. The learned counsel submits that the order of the concerned Court dated 15.01.2025 must be obliterated. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that in the light of the cross-examination of the petitioner to steer clear certain facts, he wants to examine himself all over again. The concerned Court has by a reasoned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025 order, allowed the said application and there is no warrant of interference. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, the only issue that falls for consideration is whether the order dated 15.01.2025 is in consonance with law or otherwise. Consonance with law would be whether it is in tune with purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The concerned Court, by the following order, allows the application. "ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED BY COMPLAINANT UNDER SECTION 311 OF CRPC DATED 09.01.2025. The learned counsel appearing for complainant has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW-1 to further lead his evidence. Further he submits that the documents which are sought to be produced is very much necessary in order to prove his case and thereby prays to recall PW-1 to lead further evidence. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the accused filed his objection and submits that the said application is false, frivolous and is not maintainable under law or on facts. Further he submits that the complainant has not filed proper application in order to furnish further documents and hence the application needs to be dismissed. Heard. In view of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for both the parties, this court is of the opinion that, even though an application under Section 91 is not filed, the complainant has filed an application under Section 311 to recall PW-1 to lead further evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025 Hence in order to arrive at just decision in the above case the application needs to be allowed. Further wrong mentioning of the provisions is not fatal and would not cause any prejudice to the accused. Hence for the aforementioned reasons this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Application filed by the complainant under section 311 CrPC is hereby allowed. For further chief of PW.1 finally R/by: 30.01.2025. Sd/- 15/1 JMFC V Court, D.K. Mangaluru" 6. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court cannot be said to be perfunctory or cryptic. The application filed by the complainant has merited consideration. The application getting a favourable order at the hands of the concerned Court cannot be interfered with in the case at hand, as the purport of Section 311 is for the discovery of truth. The complainant filing an application or the accused filing an application, one opportunity of the kind that is now granted ought to be granted either to the accused or to the complainant as the case would be. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17891 CRL.P No. 4472 of 2025 7. In the light of the application of the complainant succeeding, the natural corollary would be that the accused also would get an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant after the further examination of the complainant. 8. In that light, finding no warrant to interfere with the order of the concerned Court, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8