- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8177 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. H.B. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE H.C. BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.385/A, 3RD B MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI L. JOSHI W/O MR. LAKSHMIKANT JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.973, 2ND E CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. NAGENDRA DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2026 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CRPC R/W 348 OF THE BNS 2023 INSOFAR AS IT RESTRICTS Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 THE SCOPE OF THE FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PW-2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. H.R. Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. S. Nagendra Diskhit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court, which allows the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., but restricts it to the confrontation of financial documents and clarification thereon. 3. The accused files an application before the concerned Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW.2. The application filed by the petitioner assumes significance. The contents of paragraphs 2, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 3 and 5 of the application, and the prayer therein, read as follows: 2. From the evidence of PW2, several critical issues emerge. PW2 had admitted that he does not remember the specific dates or amounts of the alleged payments made between the years 2018 to 2022. He has further admitted that no receipts or documentary acknowledgments were obtained in respect of the alleged payments. The witness has relied upon a WhatsApp message marked as Ex.P7; however, the said message does not disclose the date and time clearly, does not indicate the originating number, and does not contain delivery confirmation such as double tick marks. The witness has also admitted that no Income Tax Returns or bank statements have been produced before this Hon'ble Court. Further, he has given inconsistent versions regarding the mode of payment, stating that amounts were paid through case, Google Pay, PhonePe, and bank transfer, without any supporting documentary evidence. There is also lack of clarity as to whether the alleged transaction was a loan or an investment, and with regard to the source of funds and financial capacity of the complainant. 3. It is submitted that the above aspects go to the very root of the prosecution case, particularly in relation to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, the financial capacity of the complainant, and the authenticity and admissibility of the electronic evidence relied upon. It is further submitted that certain crucial questions and necessary confrontations were not put to PW2 during the earlier cross-examination, including confrontation with financial documents, laying proper legal foundation for electronic evidence, and clarification of material contradictions. In the absence of recall of PW2, the Accused will suffer serious prejudice and this Hon'ble Court may not have complete and necessary material for proper adjudication. The present application is not filed to fill up any lacuna, but only to clarify material contradictions which directly affect the existence of a legally enforceable debt. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 5. It is submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the complainant if the present application is allowed, as the recall is limited to specific aspects only, no new case is being introduced, and the complainant will have full opportunity to re-examine the witness." 4. The written submissions are filed before the concerned Court by the petitioner. Clause-5 of the written submission reads as follows: "5. No "Second Innings" - Only Limited Clarification The allegation that the Accused is seeking a "second innings" is incorrect. The recall sought is: a) Limited in scope; b) Confined to specific contradictions and foundational aspects; c) Not a reopening of entire cross-examination. This Hon'ble Court may, if it deems fit, restrict the scope of further cross-examination, thereby addressing any apprehension of misuse." 5. The prayer that is sought in the written submission is as follows: "a) Allow the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 348 BNSS; b) Recall PW2 for limited further cross-examination; c) Pass such other order(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 6. The concerned Court allows the application on the said prayer by the following order: "6. Point No.1:- On perusal of the order sheet, when the case was posted for further complainant side evidence, at this stage, learned counsel for accused filed the application U/Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the stage and permit him to further cross-examination of PW2 on the ground that in the earlier cross examination, PW.2 admitted that he does remember the specific dates or amount of the alleged payments made between the year 2018-2022. He has further admitted that no receipts or documents were obtained in respect of the alleged payments and there is lack of clarity with regard to alleged loan transaction or an investment and with regard to the source of funds and financial capacity of the complainant and authenticity and admissibility of the electronic evidence relied by the PW.1 and with regard to limited aspects and to confront with the financial documents clarification with regard to material contradiction and hence sought to recall PW.2 for further cross of PW.2 and hence prays to allow the application. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has filed objection contending that the application is untenable and accused cannot be permitted to reopen the entire line of the cross examination and it will cause serious prejudice to the complainant and it will amounts to filling up lacunae in the defence case and prays to reject the application. 8. Admittedly, despite of opportunity given for cross-examination of PW.2, the learned counsel for accused sought further cross of PW.2 to the limited aspects with regard to confronting the financial documents and to cross examination with regard to financial capacity and also clarification with regard to some material contradiction. It is heavy burden lies on the complainant to establish the case and every opportunity must be given to both the parties to prove their case. If the accused is not given opportunity to further cross examination with regard to the limited aspects, accused will be denied of his opportunity to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 prove his case. On the other hand, if the application is allowed, no prejudice will be cause to the complainant. Hence the application needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative. 9. Point No.2:- In view of my above observation, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application U/sec 311 of Cr.P.C., filed by the counsel for accused is allowed on cost of Rs.300/-. Accused is permitted to further cross examine PW.2 with regard to limited aspects of confronting the financial documents and clarification with regard to some material contradiction and with regard to authenticity of the electronic record only." 7. The petitioner now contends that the cross- examination is limited. The cross-examination infact is not limited, but for what reason the application had been filed, the cross-examination has been permitted for the said reason only. Therefore, the petitioner on an apprehension that he would not be permitted to cross-examine the witness with regard to what he had sought for in the application, has approached this Court. There is no warrant of any interference in the case at hand. The petitioner is always permitted to cross-examine for the reason that he has sought for in the application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30187 CRL.P No. 8177 of 2026 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the oral direction of the concerned Court is to ask only one question. Such oral directions ostensibly cannot be rendered by the concerned Court, the petitioner's application was for particular purpose, the allowing of the application is for the very purpose, cross-examination will also be permitted for the very purpose. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14