Karnataka High Court
Nataraj vs Jenukal Enterprises on 4 March, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2131 OF 2018
BETWEEN
NATARAJ
S/O MALLESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAMMARAGATTA POST,
DUDDA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND
JENUKAL ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ANANTHARAMEGOWDA,
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BELUR ROAD,
TANNIRUHALLA,
HASSAN-573201. ... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2018
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT
HASSAN IN C.C.NO.4285/2016 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C AS PER ANNEXURE 'A' BY
PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE THE P.W.1.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order
dated 20.02.2018 by dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. Though respondent is served, but remained
unrepresented.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the
respondent has filed a complaint under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I. Act. The petitioner being the accused appeared before
the Court, pleaded not guilty and the case was posted for
recording the evidence of the respondent-complainant.
Accordingly, the respondent filed an affidavit and six
documents were marked. On the date of examination of
the complainant on 12.10.2017, learned counsel for the
accused has filed exemption application which was
allowed. However, cross examination was taken as NIL
when the case was taken up for cross-examination at
12.45 p.m. Therefore, the matter was posted for 313
Cr.P.C for recording the statement of the accused.
Accordingly, on 22.12.2017 the accused moved an
application for recalling the warrant which was recalled and
the trial Court recorded the statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C but posted the matter for arguments without
giving an opportunity to lead the evidence of accused.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C on 20.02.2018 for reopening of the
case and permission to cross-examine PW.1 which came to
be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Looking to the entire allegation made and
order of the trial Court which reveals that the trial Court
though recorded the evidence of P.W.1 on 12.10.2017 and
on the same day, learned counsel for the accused
appeared in the morning and filed exemption application
which was allowed. When the matter was taken up at
12.40 p.m. the learned counsel was absent. Hence, cross-
examination was taken as NIL without giving an
opportunity for cross-examining PW.1 and posted the
matter for recording the statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., without giving an opportunity to the accused for
cross-examination and even after recording statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, without adjourning the
matter for recording the evidence of the accused as
required under the Cr.P.C. also not given, all these orders
are illegal and not given any proper opportunity to the
accused for cross-examining the witness and trial Court
proceeded to post the matter for final arguments and also
judgment. Consequently, rejecting the application under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C is not correct. Therefore, the order
dated 26.02.2018 is required to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
7. The order of dated 26.02.2018 passed by the
II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan dismissing the
application filed by the accused under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside.
8. The application filed by the accused under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
9. The petitioner-accused is permitted to recall
PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination at the cost of
Rs.1,000/- and the petitioner shall not seek any
adjournments in this matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
