- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16900 OF 2026 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15970 OF 2026 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 16900/2026 BETWEEN: MR. SAMEER HARSHAD SATA, S/O. HARSHAD SATA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.39, NEAR LAKSHMI NARAYAN MANDIR, TAGORE ROAD, SANTACRUZ-WEST, MUMBAI-400054. …PETITIONER (BY MS. HEENA S.A, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S VANDANA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, NO.5, TULSI REST HOUSE, CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRS. VANDANA JAIN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE/SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO A) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2026 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 91 AND 311 OF CRPC, PASSED IN CC NO. 14253/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER AND ETC. IN WP NO. 15970/2026 BETWEEN: MR. SAMEER HARSHAD SATA, S/O HARSHAD SATA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.39, NEAR LAKSHMI NARAYANA MANDIR, TAGORE TAOD, NAVYUG COLONY, SANTACRUZ-WEST, MUMBAI-400054. ...PETITIONER (BY MS. HEENA S.A, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. VANDANA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013, NO.5, TULSI REST HOUSE, CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE 560001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRS. VANDANA JAIN. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE/SECTION 528 OF BNSS PRAYING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 A) TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2026 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 91 AND 311 OF CR.PC IN CC NO. 25940/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-L; IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner, common in both the petitions, is before the Court seeking the following prayer: In W.P.No.16900/2026 : “a) Set-aside the order dated 14.05.2026 on Application filed by the Respondent under Section 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C., passed in C.C.No.14253/2022 pending on the file of the XXVIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Bengaluru vide ANNEXURE-H; insofar as this petitioner; b) Set-aside the order dated 29.05.2026 on Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. passed in C.C.No.14253/2022 pending on the file of the XXVIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Bengaluru vide Annexure-L and consequently allow the application filed by the Petition under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure c) Grant such other relief/relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 In W.P.No.15970/2026 : “a) Set-aside the order dated 23.03.2026 passed on application filed by the Respondent under Section 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.25940/2023 pending on the file of the XXVIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Bengaluru vide ANNEXURE-L; insofar as Petitioner is concerned; d) Set-aside the order dated 15.05.2026 passed on application filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. passed in C.C.No.25940/2023 pending on the file of the XXVIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Bengaluru vide Annexure-M and consequently allow the application filed by the Petitioner under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as Petitioner herein e) Grant such other relief/relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Ms. Heena S.A., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Kashyap N. Naik, learned counsel for respondent in both the petitions. 3. Facts obtaining in W.P.No.16900/2026 is narrated, for the sake of convenience. The narration is as follows: The petitioner is the accused, the respondent, is the complainant, in both the petitions. The two have a transaction. The transaction goes wrong and the complainant is before the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. Before the concerned Court, two applications come to be filed. One by the complainant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., seeking permission for production of the authorization letter given to the complainant to represent the company. This application comes to be allowed in terms of the order dated 14.05.2026. The order reads as follows: “REASONS 7. Point No.1: The present applications are filed by the counsel for complainant for production of documents and recall of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the documents stating that at the time of evidence of PW1, due to oversight authorization letter issued in favour of PW1 was not marked. The said document is necessary. To mark the said document recall of PW1 is necessary. Hence prays to allow the applications. The said applications are opposed by the counsel for accused stating that The complainant has not mentioned about the authorization letter in the complaint and not mentioned about the same in the notice. Now to fulfill the fundamental defect, complainant want to produce the said authorization letter at the later stage. Hence, prays to reject the applications. 8. Perused case papers, this is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/S 138 of N.I Act. When the case was posted for final arguments at that time the counsel for complainant filed present applications for production of document and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 re-call of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the said document. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons have availed financial assistance i.e. loan from the complainant and towards repayment of loan amount the accused persons have issued cheque of Rs.3,00,00,000/- in favour of complainant company. The defence of the accused persons is that the complainant has misused his cheque. The burden of proving loan transaction is on the complainant, now the complainant is seeking permission to produce the document i.e., Authorization Letter. The said Authorization Letter is a material document to substantiate the lucus standi of the authorized person. The complainant ought to have produced the same at the time of filing of complaint. However, non production of Authorization Letter at the time of filing, of complaint does not invalidate the proceedings. The Authorization can be ratified or produced later to prove the authorized person had the authority to initiate the case. Non production of Authorization Letter is a curable defect, which can be rectified even at the stage of arguments. If the said document is permitted to be produced no harm will be caused to the accused. The accused has every right to cross examine PW.1 on the above said document. The delay and inconvenience caused to the accused can be compensated by imposing cost. In the interest of justice and equity it is just and proper to give an opportunity to the complainant to mark the above said document on their behalf and it is just and necessary to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further chief examination for marking the said documents. The complainant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. 9. Point No.2: In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: :ORDER: Applications filed by counsel for complainant U/S 91 & 311 of Cr.P.C are hereby allowed on cost of Rs 1,000/-each. Complainant is permitted to produce document as prayed in application. PW.1 is re-called for the purpose of further chief-examination. For further chief of PW.1 Call on: 18/05/2026” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 3.1. Another application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., comes to be filed by the petitioner – accused seeking further defense evidence of DW.1. The application filed by the petitioner reads as follows: “1. The accused submits that the case was posted for defense evidence/Cross of DW-1 on 20/07/2024, that the accused No. 1 aged about 61 years and he is suffering from Asthama, low back pain and he faces difficulty in traveling interstate. The Accused No.1 is resident of Mumbai and has to travel to Bangalore which shall cause hardship. 2. It is further submitted that the wife of accused NO.1 Smt. Minal Sata, aged about 62 years is suffering from Diabetic, high blood ssure and skin cancer. Therefore, she had undergo surgery pressu for skin cancer/Carcinoma in Washington Hospital, Center, Washington, United States of America. 3. That considering the age and old aged medical aliments of Accused No.1 and his wife who needs constant and regular medical check-ups he could not give proper and necessary instruction by supplying documents in order to proceed with the case due to that the accused counsel was not able to lead further Defense Evidence and now this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 08/07/2024 has concluded the defense evidence. 4. That subsequent to this the Accused No.1 has filed Petitioner under section 482 of Code of criminal procedure CLR.P.NO.7323/2024 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka and the same came to disposed off on 25/06/2025. 5. That the present case is posted for further cross of PW1 on 22.05.2026. There was no cross examination - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 of DW1 in the present case. In the absence of the same, the Accused would be put to great hardship. As the examination of the DW1 stage is closed. 6. That if the application is not allowed great hardship and injury would be caused to the accused in other hand the application is allowed no hardship or injustice would be caused to the prosecution. WHEREFORE, the accused prays that this Hon'ble court maybe pleased to recall and permit to lead further Defense Evidence, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3.2. The concerned Court rejects the application in terms of its order dated 29.05.2026: REASONS “7.Point No.1: The present application is filed by the counsel for accused for recall of DW.1 for the purpose of cross examination and seeking permission to lead further defence evidence stating that accused No.1 is aged about 61 years and suffering from Asthama, low back pain and he faces difficulty in traveling interstate and his wife Smt. Minal Sata is aged about 62 years and suffering from diabetic, high B.P.and skin cancer, due to constant and regular medical check up he could not give proper and necessary instruction by supplying documents in order to proceed with the case, due to that, accused counsel was not able to lead further defence evidence. there was no cross-examination of D.W.1, in the absence of same, accused would be put to great hardship. Hence prays to allow the application. The said application is opposed by the counsel for complainant stating that the accused was afforded amply opportunities to present himself for cross- examination or produce any documents in support of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 his case, permitting the accused to now introduce additional documentary evidence would not only prejudice the complainant but also cause unwarranted delay in proceedings, Hence prays to reject the application. 8. Perused case papers, this is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/S 138 of N.I Act. When the case was posted for final arguments at that time the counsel for complainant filed present applications for production of document and re-call of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the said document. It is the case of the complainant that the accused has availed financial assistance i.e. loan. from the complainant. Towards repayment of said amount the accused has issued cheque of Rs.3,00,00,000/- in favour of complainant company. The defence of the accused is that the complainant has misused his cheque. The accused has denied the loan transaction. In this case the complainant completed her evidence on 12.5.2022 and her cross examination was completed on 9.10.2023. After completion of complainant's evidence, the accused got examined himself as DW1 on 20.6.2024 and at the request of the counsel for complainant the cross examination of DW1 was deferred on 8.7.2024, 16.7.2024 and 20.7.2024. Though the complainant and counsel for complainant were present on those hearing dates but, the accused remained absent. Hence on 20.7.2024 this court has taken cross examination of DWI as not tendered for cross examination and posted the matter for final arguments. Thereafter _counsel for accused has filed Writ Petition No. 18582/2024 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has stayed the further proceedings of this case. On 18.3.2026 the counsel for complainant filed order copy of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dtd. 12.12.2025 wherein the stay granted Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has been vacated. Thereafter, the case was posted for final - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 arguments. When the case was posted for final arguments at that time the counsel for accused filed present application for re-call of DW.1 for the purpose of cross examination and seeking permission to lead further defence evidence. In the application it is contended that due to ill health of accused he could not give instructions to his counsel to lead further defence evidence. But on perusal of case papers, it reveals that the counsel for accused has not produced a single document to show that on 20.07.2024 the accused was suffering from illness and his wife was under treatment on 20/07/2024. Without producing any documents in support of the application the accused is seeking recall and permission to lead defence evidence which is not permissible under law. If at all accused was suffering from any illness and his wife has undergone any treatment then he would have produced medical documents in support of his application, but the accused has not produced any documents in support of his application. The accused has not made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in Negative. 9. Point No.2: In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following; :ORDER: Application filed by counsel for accused U/s 311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. For final arguments. Call on 06/06/2026.” (sic) 4. The issue in the companion petition – W.P.No.15970/2026 is the same, but the orders passed by the concerned Court in C.C.No.25940/2023 on 23.03.2026 is on - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 the complainant’s application and is on 15.05.2026 on the petitioner’s application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the authorization letter being produced by the complainant in the teeth of the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., preferred by the complainant being allowed, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to lead further defense evidence on the said marking of the authorization letters and recall DW1 on the issue. 6. In the light of the said applications filed by the complainant being allowed by the concerned Court, it ought to have allowed the applications filed by the petitioner as well. 7. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter is at the stage of judgment and therefore, the applications are being used as a ruse to drag the proceedings. 8. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, while granting one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, I - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31933 WP No. 16900 of 2026 C/W WP No. 15970 of 2026 direct the concerned Court to oversee that the parties would not try to drag the proceedings any further. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petitions are allowed in-part. b. The order dated 29.05.2026, passed by the XXVIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.14253/2022, impugned in W.P.No.16900/2026 and order dated 15.05.2026, passed by the XXVIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.25940/2023, impugned in W.P.No.15970/2026, stand quashed. c. In the light of the issue being of the year 2022, the concerned Court is directed to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10