- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7359 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7331 OF 2025 IN CRL.P No. 7359/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SREE BALAJI INTERNATIONAL OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 1013, NO. 235 LUZ AMOR APARTMENTS ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD MYLAPORE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE- 600 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. ANNADURAI. M. 2. SRI. ANNADURAI. M SON OF MR. MANICKAM RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1013, NO. 235, LUZ AMOR APARTMENTS ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD MYLAPORE, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU STATE- 600 004 …PETITIONERS (BY MS. SHAMNAZ ABUBAAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL CARIYAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 AND: M/S R J RISHIKARAN PROJECTS PVT LTD., OFFICE AT PENT HOUSE RJ MANOR APARTMENTS 11/A 80 FEET ROAD, 3RD CROSS, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. RATHNAKAR SHETTY …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURU PRASAD C REDDY., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS 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 THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED IN CC.NO.59698/2022 PASSED BY XVII ASCJ AND ACJM, AT BENGALURU. IN CRL.P NO. 7331/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SREE BALAJI INTERNATIONAL OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 1013, NO. 235 LUZ AMOR APARTMENTS ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE- 600 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. ANNADURAI. M. 2. SRI. ANNADURAI. M SON OF MR. MANICKAM RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1013, NO. 235 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 LUZ AMOR APARTMENTS ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD MYLAPORE, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU STATE- 600 004 ...PETITIONERS (BY MS. SHAMNAZ ABUBAAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL CARIYAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S R J RISHIKARAN PROJECTS PVT LTD., OFFICE AT PENT HOUSE RJ MANOR APARTMENTS 11/A 80 FEET ROAD, 3RD CROSS, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. RATHNAKAR SHETTY ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURU PRASAD C REDDY., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS 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 THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.51516/2021 PASSED BY THE XVII ADDL.SCJ AND A.C.J.M SCCH-21 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners in both these petitions are common. They are accused Nos.1 and 2 are now at the doors of this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court which allows an application filed under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) by the respondent/complainant. 2. Heard Sri. Shamnaz Abubaakar, learned counsel for Sri. Rahul Cariyappa K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Guru Prasad C. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioners and the respondent have a transaction. The transaction goes wrong. The complainant then approaches the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the claim of the complainant or the defence of the petitioners/accused. The issue is with regard to an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and it being allowed at the hands of the concerned Court. The accused claims to be aggrieved by the order that allows the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no Board resolution or the authorization for filing the complaint in PCR.No.58350/2022, this would cut at the root of the matter. Therefore, the production of the document at a belated stage will not cure the defect that stood at the time of registration of the complaint, this is not the purport of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is a submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would refute the submissions and contend that the document was always in place, where the resolution of the Board was way back in the year 2016 for all litigation cases, by the company and against the company. The Board resolution was not placed out of inadvertence. Therefore, it is now placed by way of an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. He would submit that the petitioners have after the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 marking of the Board resolution or the authorization, as the case would be has led evidence and the matter was at the stage of passing the judgment at that time the subject petition is preferred and the entire proceedings are now stalled on this ground. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The matter being at the stage of passing of the order is also not in dispute. What drives the petitioners to this Court at this juncture is the order passed by the concerned Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The order reads as follows: "ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF Cr.P.C Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C and prayed to recall the complainant/PW.1 to adduce further evidence and get it marked the document. 2. In the application complainant contended that, at the time of evidence, complainant did not produced Board Resolution dated 02.04.2016 and said document misplaced but, subsequently complainant produced the same in C.C.No.59699/2022. Therefore, it is just and necessary to get it marked in this case. Hence, he prays to allow the application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the accused filed objections stating that complainant company is maliciously filing the instant application to mark Board Resolution dated 02.04.2016 at this belated stage only to make up for the lacunas in the complainant's case. Further he contended that earlier PW.1 was not produced the Board Resolution as such, his evidence become null and void. On these grounds learned counsel for the accused No.2 prayed to reject the application. 4. Heard by both sides. 5. Perused the complaint as well as application. 6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:- 1) Whether the application filed by the accused U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C is deserves to be allowed? 2) What order? 7. My answer to the above points are as under:- Point No.1: In the affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order, REASONS 8. POINT NO.1: The complainant has filed the present case against the accused for the dishonor of cheque of Rs.77 lakhs. Now, the case is posted for defence evidence, at this stage complainant has filed the present application. On going through the cross-examination of PW.1, wherein witness himself has deposed that he has not produced the Board Resolution and will produce the same. Moreover, witness can produce documents at any stage of the proceedings. Apart, in case reported in (1998) 1 SCC 687 between Associated Cement Company Ltd. V/s. Keshavanand, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "If a complaint is made in the name - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 of a company, it is necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the court and the court looks upon the natural person for all practical purposes. It is noticed context that observations were made that body corporate is a de jure complainant while the human being is a de facto complainant to represent the former in court proceedings. Thus, no Magistrate could insist that the board personal, whose statement was appears on oath alone can continue to representing till the end of the proceedings. Not only that, even if there was initially no authority the company can at any stage rectify that defect by sending a competent person". 9. As such having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this court opines that if the application filed by the complainant is allowed, no harm or loss to be caused to the other side. Hence, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the complainant U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.200/-and thereby PW.1 is recalled for further chief-examination." The order allows the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., permits the complainant to produce the authorization, as it was left out at the relevant point in time to be produced. If it was a case where there is no resolution, no authorization at all, it would have been a different circumstance. To cure the said defect, the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is filed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18815 CRL.P No. 7359 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7331 of 2025 8. Evidence is let in by the petitioners on the said application or the document being marked at the stage of judgment, the petition could not have been preferred on the aforesaid score of non-availability of the authorisation at the relevant point in time. 9. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Interim order of any kind stands dissolved. The concerned Court shall regulate its procedure to take the issue to its logical conclusion. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7