Karnataka High Court
K K Medicals vs Mahalaxmi Distributors on 12 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6755
CRL.P No. 201713 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201713 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
K. K. MEDICALS
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MOHAMMED ZUBAIR AHMED,
S/O MOHAMMED BAQUER KHATEEB,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.11-1219/1B
HAJI YOUSUF COMPOUND,
MSK MILL AREA, KALABURAGI-585103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PRAKRITI M. BORALKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MAHALAXMI DISTRIBUTORS
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
RAVINDRAKUMAR V. BEKNAL
S/O VEERSHETTY BEKNAL
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO.8-713/12/SF/2B
2ND FLOOR, CENTURY COMPLEX,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, OPP. SANGAM TALKIES,
KALABURAGI-585102.
NOW AT FLAT NO.SF-01,
SAI RESIDENCY, 2ND FLOOR BEHIND SHETTY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6755
CRL.P No. 201713 of 2025
HC-KAR
TALKIES, ALAND ROAD AREA,
KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025
ALLOWING THE IA UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.284/2024 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO REJECT THE
IA UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. DATED 24.04.2025 IN
C.C.NO.284/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned petition is by the accused assailing the
order dated 17.09.2025 in CC No.284/2024 registered for
offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) passed by IV Addl. Senior
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6755
HC-KAR
Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi on an application file
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The primary grievance urged by the petitioner before
this Court is that the complainant has sought to place
additional documents on record after an inordinate lapse
of nearly two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the trial had virtually concluded and the
matter was posted for final arguments, which both parties
had substantially addressed. At such a belated stage, the
complainant could not have invoked Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
to recall himself and produce an audit report. It is further
contended that the order impugned is cryptic and bereft of
reasons, thereby vitiating the exercise of discretion by the
learned Magistrate.
3. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined
the impugned order.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6755
HC-KAR
4. It is true that the impugned order does not
disclose any cogent reasons for allowing the application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, this Court
cannot overlook the nature of the proceedings. The
complaint is instituted alleging dishonour of a cheque for a
substantial sum of Rs.31,06,121/-. Having regard to the
magnitude of the financial claim and the nature of the
allegation, this Court is of the view that mere absence of
elaborate reasoning in the order cannot, by itself, justify
interference. The judgment relied on by the petitioner
rendered in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central
Bureau of Investigation1 in fact supports the
proposition that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is
intended to advance the cause of justice.
5. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court underscores that the power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. is wide and can be exercised at any stage of
enquiry, trial or other proceedings, if such exercise is
(2019) 14 SCC 328
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6755
HC-KAR
essential for arriving at a just decision. While it is correct
that such power must be used sparingly and not in a
routine manner, the circumstances of the present case
particularly the substantial cheque amount involved
indicate that no serious prejudice would be caused to the
petitioner if the complainant is recalled for the limited
purpose of producing the audit report. The proposed
document appears consistent with the pleadings in the
complaint and does not amount to introduction of a new
case. The petitioner will have full opportunity to cross-
examine the complainant on the additional material.
Though there is some laxity on the part of the complainant
in not producing the document earlier, the interests of
justice outweigh the procedural delay. Therefore, the order
allowing the application does not warrant interference.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being
devoid of merit stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17/CT:SI
