- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18931 CRL.P No. 16544 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. 16544 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH. K S/O SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 28, SAI SANKALPA LAYOUT, BANJARA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVINDA KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA NAGARAJ S/O SRI. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT 3RD MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, HOYSALANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANDEEP C.T, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18931 CRL.P No. 16544 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 10.10.2025 ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIII ACJM, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPLICATION U/S 311 R/W SEC. 315 OF Cr.PC, 1973 FILED BY THE PETITIONER- ACCUSED HEREIN IN THE C.C.NO.56276/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 10.10.2025, which rejects the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) read with Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri. Aravinda Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sandeep C.T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner and the respondent are accused and the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18931 CRL.P No. 16544 of 2025 falters and the complainant is before the concerned Court invoking jurisdiction for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the complainant or the defence of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his defence evidence to be done by his appearance, as the defence evidence was sought to be tendered by way of an affidavit. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. The order of rejection reads as follows: "The counsel for the accused has filed application under sec.311 of Cr.P.C. r/w sec.315 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to lead evidence of the accused by way of affidavit or by way of sworn statement. The counsel for the complainant has filed objections to it. Heard the counsel for the accused. The complainant did not address his arguments on the I.A. inspite of sufficient opportunity. Perused the materials available on record. I have gone through the application, objections and other materials available on record. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its Judgment delivered in W.P.No.3519/2024 dated 19.07.2024, between Mrs. Zaheda Inamdar Vs. Dr. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18931 CRL.P No. 16544 of 2025 Fathima Hassina Sayeedha, has categorically held that the statute does not confer any right on the accused to file his evidence by way of an affidavit. In view of the ration laid down in the said decision, I am of the opinion that the application is liable to be dismissed with cost as the present application is also filed at a belated stage when the matter was posted for arguments. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the accused under Sec.311 of Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.315 of Cr.p.C. is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-." 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits insofar as the defence evidence is concerned that the cross application that was preferred is after the cross- examination. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that plethora of applications are filed on one pretext or the other and the proceedings are pending for the last eight years in a dishonour of a cheque. He would further submit that even if it is to be allowed, it should be with stringent conditions that no adjournment would be sought and on the same day, the defence evidence should be concluded. 6. In the light of the defence evidence not being led in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18931 CRL.P No. 16544 of 2025 one opportunity for defence evidence to be fixed and concluded on the date fixed by the concerned Court, making it clear that there will be no further opportunity to the petitioner to file such applications and drag the proceedings all over again. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the XXXIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru stands quashed; (iii) The application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed; (iv) The petitioner shall lead his defence evidence in accordance with law on the date fixed by the concerned Court; (v) The evidence shall conclude on the same day. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment and this is the last straw of opportunity to the petitioner and applications of this kind will not be entertained in future; and (vi) In the light of the matter being at the stage of judgment, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality with a direction to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings with an outer - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18931 CRL.P No. 16544 of 2025 limit of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12