Karnataka High Court
Sri.A.Lawrence vs Sri Milan Kumar R on 9 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7493
CRL.P No. 328 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 328 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. LAWRENCE
S/O T. ANTONYDASS,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT INFANT JESUS HOUSE,
4TH CROSS, NAGAVARAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 093.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MILAN KUMAR R.
S/O S.K. RAMALINGAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
by
SANJEEVINI J R/A NO 25, 9TH B MAIN ROAD,
KARISHETTY
Location: High
2ND C CROSS, KALYANNAGAR
Court of BANGALORE - 560 043.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A.
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE XXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE MAYO HALL
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7493
CRL.P No. 328 of 2026
HC-KAR
AT BENGALURU (CCH-20) IN CRL.RP.NO.25039/2025 DATED
12.12.2025 AND ETC.
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 this Court calling in question an order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereby, the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., by the petitioner in C.C.No.58115/2019 comes to be rejected and the order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in Crl.R.P.No.25039/2025, which affirms the said rejection.
2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is the accused, the respondent, the complainant. Two have a transaction; in furtherance of the said transaction, cheques are issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, which when presented, are dishonoured. The -3- NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR dishonouring of the cheques is what has driven the complainant to the concerned Court in C.C.No.58115/2019.
3. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter.
The accused files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. at the fag end of the proceedings. This comes to be rejected by the concerned Court by its order dated 21.04.2025 and the matter is posted for arguments. This order of the learned Magistrate is challenged by the petitioner - accused before the revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.25039/2025 and the revision petition comes to be rejected by an order dated 12.12.2025. The petitioner is now at the door of this Court challenging these two orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner for further cross-examination of the complainant by allowing the application. The orders of the concerned Courts are erroneous, is his submission.
-4-NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Notice to respondent need not be issued.
6. What has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition are, the two orders of the concerned Courts.
The order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the learned Magistrate reads as follows.
"ORDERS ON APPLICATION U/S 311 CR.P.C. The counsel for the accused has filed this application U/Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C seeking to summon Sri. Mahesh Kumar S/o Prakash Reddy, 3rd Street, Opposite to Yellow Mart, PWD Road, Akash Nagar, Guruvareddy Layout, Bangalore-16.
He has stated that while going through cross- examination of PW1 and DW1, he came to know that there was no transaction between them, but the entire transaction has been taken place with the above said witness who was a financier and obtained the cheque in question alongwith one more blank signed cheque and original document of the accused pertaining to land situated at Coorge and also blank signed stamp paper. The complainant has filled the contents of the cheque in question and got created the lease agreement on the said blank E-stamp paper and has filed this false case. Accordingly, prayed for allowing the application.
The learned counsel for the complainant has filed his objections to the said application denying the averments of the application and contending that no reasons are made out in the application as to why the above said witness is to be summoned and the accused has admitted the execution of the lease agreement signing before the notary and also admitted the cheque in -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR question and his signature and as such, the accused cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time and the accused has not furnished any cogent material to show that the accused had issued the cheque in question to the above said witness and it has been misused and the accused has filed this application only to drag on the proceedings. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application.
Heard both the sides. I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in Crl.P.No.869/2024 dated 08.02.2024 produced by the complainant. Perused the materials available on record.
It is relevant to mention here that upon going through the application, objections and other materials available on record, it could be seen that though the accused has stated that he came to know that there was no transaction between PW1 and DW1 and the transaction has taken place with the above said witness while going through their cross-examination, he has not clearly stated in his application what were those suggestions or questions from which he came to know about the said fact. Merely because the accused has taken a defence by way of suggestion or question during the cross-examination of PW1 or in his chief- examination, it cannot be a ground to seek the assistance of this court to establish his defence by way of filing the present application. It is for the accused to establish his defence independently. Further PW1 nowhere in his cross-examination admitted the issuance of the cheque in question by the accused in favour of the above said witness. As such, keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the above said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, I am of the opinion the application is liable to be rejected. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The application filed by the accused U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR For arguments. Call on:12.05.2025 Sd/-
21.04.2025 XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU."
(Emphasis added) The order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.25039/2025 affirming the order of the learned Magistrate, reads as follows:
"REASONS
7. Point No.1 : Before I advert with the facts of the case, I would like to mentioned current preposition of law as it settled by the Hon'ble Supeme Court of India in its judgment reported; Crl. Appeal No.486-487 of 2009 - Sethuram Vs Rajamanickam - Wherein the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court of India particular at para No.4 of the judgment it held ;
Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of -7- NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.
8. Further the same ratio followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its subsequent judgment reported in 2013 5 Supreme Court cases 741 - Natasha Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S. 311 Examination of person as witness under Issue(s) to be considered - Only admissibility/relevance of evidence of witness concerned is to be considered, and not its likely probative value Held, trial court cannot prejudge evidence of witnesses sought to be examined Examination of a witness cannot be refused on ground that evidence of that witness would not be conclusive Only issue to be considered is whether evidence proposed to be adduced is relevant or not Court can weigh the evidence only and only once the same has been 9 laid before it and brought on record On facts, trial court was not justified in dismissing application of appellant-accused under S. 311 for permission to examine three witnesses, by prejudging evidence of these witnesses and holding the examination unnecessary for the case Application for their examination, allowed
2) 2013 14 Supreme Court cases 461 - Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar and another held that;
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 311 Nature and scope Recall and re-examination of witness Power of Court - Exercise of Principles to be followed by courts Explained and enumerated in detail Held, such power can be exercised at any stage as per principles elaborately stated herein
- But paramount consideration should always be of just decision of the case Evidence Act, 1872- S. 138- Criminal Trial Witnesses Recall of witness
3) (2017) 9 Supreme Court cases 340 - Ratanlal vs Prahlad Jat and others, held that;
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 311 Discretionary power of b court under, to -8- NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re- examine any person already examined Object of Explained Relevant considerations while exercise of that power Delayed application for recall of a witness Effect of
4) Special Leave petition (Criminal) No.1522/2023 - K.P.Tamilmaran Vs The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Section 311 CrPC reads as follows:, "311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." This Section 311 of CrPC provides wide powers to a Criminal Court, to do the following: i. Summon any person as a witness, or ii. Examine any person present in court, though not summoned as witness, or iii. Recall and re- examine any person already examined. The above powers can be exercised 'at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding' under the CrPC.
9. So from the above judgments it could understand order on application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other application U/s 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness be the nature of interlocutory, upon such of the same order revision clearly not maintainable and revisional court would not have the power to interfere in his revisional jurisdiction.
10. If it applied the same preposition of law into case on hand, it is of the specific contention of petitioner/accused is, the respondent/complainant have the case at before the trial court for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. As -9- NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR per the petitioner/accused the offending cheque have not been issued by him to the respondent/complainant. The same such of the offending cheque that he issued to one Mr.Mahesh Kumar and not to the respondent/complainant. Since no transaction taken place in between petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant and said offending cheque issued to one Mr.Mahesh Kumar, said Mahesh Kumar required to examined by the petitioner/accused at before the trial court to disprove the case of respondent/complainant. With that being the petitioner/accused have filed the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. and he prays for summons to Mr.Mahesh Kumar. The same application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court on the merits. In against such of the order, the petitioner/accused have at before this court by invoking revisional jurisdiction. If it go through the case record along with impugned order dated 21.04.2025 said to be passed by learned trial judge, the impugned order speaks learned trial judge by giving his own cogent reason he dismissed application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused. Further if it compared the impugned order, revisional jurisdiction of this court, with settle preposition of law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India one could adjudged there is force in the claim of respondent/complainant. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled order on application filed under section 91 or 311 of Cr.P.C. as it oosted the revisional jurisdiction of this court, this court has no such of the revisional jurisdiction to revise the order dated 21.04.2025 passed on the application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. with this being of observation, I answered the point No.1 in the not maintainable.
11. Point No.2 : Since I answered point No.1 in not maintainable, point No.2 does not arise for my consideration and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The revision petition filed by the Petitioner under section 397 of CrPC, is dismissed as not maintainable.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR Send the copy of this order to the lower court forthwith."
(Emphasis added) A perusal at the reasons so rendered by the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court in the afore-quoted orders would nowhere indicate that they suffer from any perversity or orders that are contrary to law.
7. The petitioner had given opportunity to cross-examine completely which he has done 4 years ago and now, at the fag end of the trial or when the matter is set for arguments, the petitioner - accused files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which cannot, but, be held to be only a ruse to drag the proceedings. However, if such a course is permitted, it would become an misuse of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments of the Apex Court holding that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., no doubt, is necessary to be permitted, as it leads to discovery of truth. But, however, the Apex Court would indicate that it should not become an abuse of the process of the law.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7493 CRL.P No. 328 of 2026 HC-KAR
8. The trial in the case at hand has begun 6 years ago and when the matter is at the fag end or the summary of the trial, at the stage of argument, the application is filed. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected.
I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT-SG