IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5975/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI MADHU PRASAD, S/O NAGESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.185, KANAN COMPLEX, YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE – 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI JAYASIMHA, S/O LATE K V SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.286, CHAMPAKADHAMA NILAYA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 097.
WORKING AT JAYASHIMHA, RMCA ENGINEERING C/O HAL AERO ENGINEERING DIVISION, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 093. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NAYEEM PASHA S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH-21) IN CRL.RP.NO.25017/2017 DATED 5.07.2017 AND TO DIRECT THE LEARNED LVIII ACMM, BANGALORE TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 13.02.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 311 OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.56092/2014.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though matter is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal, since proceedings before the trial court has been held up in view of the interim order, stay of proceedings granted by this Court on 15.11.2017.
2. Heard Sri. Dharmapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Respondent is served and represented by Sri.Nayeem Pasha, who has remained absent.
3. An application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-complainant to get himself examined for tendering further evidence, has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 20.02.2017 and as such, the complainant is before this Court for allowing the application by quashing the impugned order.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that respondent had given a complaint about cheque having been stolen by the petitioner-complainant and said complaint came to be registered against petitioner and in that regard, statement of the petitioner came to be recorded by jurisdictional police, which petitioner intends to tender in the present proceedings since it would have a direct bearing on the present proceedings pending before said Court and as such application ought to have been allowed.
5. Since Respondent-accused has not appeared and keeping the present proceedings pending, would not subserve the ends of justice and the fact that PW-1 intends to tender further evidence, an opportunity deserves to be granted and it cannot be gain said that in order to fill up the lacuna or admissions elicited in the cross-examination, petitioner is being permitted to put forth further evidence. The Respondent-accused would have an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant- petitioner and subject to the same, petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity to lead further evidence.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 20.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.56092/2014 and order dated 05.07.2017 passed in Crl.R.P.No.25017/2017 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Application filed by petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.56092/2014 is hereby allowed and petitioner is permitted to lead further evidence.
(iv) Petitioner would be at liberty to place further documents as he intends and necessarily, trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the Respondent-accused to cross-examine the complainant-petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.