IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4819 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA @ RUKMINI W/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AT UMA PRAGATHI HIGH SCHOOL, MYDALA KYATHASANDRA POST TUMAKURU-572 104 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. M. VIJAYAKRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
M.R. NARASIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE M.R. NARASIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. DR. M.N. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE M.R. NARASIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SRI. M.N. SURESH S/O LATE M.R. NARASIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SMT. PUSHPALATHA D/O LATE M.R. NARASIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA KRUPA 10TH CROSS, BATAWADE MAHALAKSHIMANAGARA TUMAKURU CITY PIN-572 101 ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.3618/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S.311 OF CR.P.C., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner is accused in the proceedings initiated by predecessor of respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She has taken exception to the order dated 12.06.2019 allowing an application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1.
2. Shri Vijayakrishna Bhat M., learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondents have utilised the opportunity available to them during the trial to substantiate their claim that they are the legal representatives of deceased complainant. The case was posted for judgment on 02.01.2019. Thereafter, the complainants have filed the instant application on 20.03.2019 seeking to recall P.W.1 to produce genealogical tree.
3. Shri Vijayakrishna Bhat vehemently argued that discretion vested in the learned Judicial Magistrate must be exercised with due diligence. This is a case in which the complainants have chosen to file an application two months after the case was posted for judgment. Learned Magistrate has allowed the same by exercising his discretion unreasonably. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition and to dismiss the application filed by the complainants.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. The application has been filed by the respondents herein claiming to be the legal representatives of deceased original complainant. Petitioner has serious objection with regard to the relationship of respondents with the original complainant. Learned trial Judge while dealing with this aspect has recorded cogent reasons in paragraphs No.7 and 8 of the impugned order. Firstly, the impugned order is a discretionary order and it has been allowed on cost and secondly, the petitioner is accused and the proceeding is a quasi criminal proceeding initiated against him. By allowing the application in question, permission is granted for further examination of P.W.1 representing the complainant. Needless to mention that accused always have a right of cross-examination. In the conspectus of facts of this case, in the opinion of this Court, no prejudice shall be caused to the accused by the impugned order. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.