IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1022 OF 2017 BETWEEN:-
SRI. R RAGUNATHA SETTY S/O LATE P RAMAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PRO.PRS AND CO.
RESIDING AT NO.3071 A C ABDUL ALI ROAD BANGARPET-564 114 AND ALSO NO.36, 1ST FLOOR 1ST MAIN NORTH HOUSE TO BABEL NIVAS (GURUKUL PLAY HOME) H G H GANGANAGAR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 032 (By Sri: SRINIVASAN T, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. N PUSHPALATHA WIFE OF A MALLESHA REDDY AGEDA BOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1533/31 3RD MAIN RAMAIAH LAYOUT ... PETITIONER KACHARAKAHANALLY BANGALORE-506 059 AND ALSO NO.37, 4TH CROSS VIJAYASHREE LAYOUT MYLASANDRA BRIDGE CROSS R V ENGINEERING COLLEGE POST BANGALORE-560 059 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2016 IN C.C.NO.51689/2014 INSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT PENDING ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER.
THIS CRL. P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 13.12.2016 in C.C.No.51689/2014 pending on the file of XIV Addl.CMM, Bengaluru. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C.
2. A perusal of the above order indicates that PW-1 has been cross-examined on three occasions at length and it is only after the case was posted for defence evidence, the petitioner has come up with this application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. once again seeking to recall PW-1. As the Trial Court has granted sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1 and the petitioner having availed the said opportunities to the full, the Trial Court’s order cannot be faulted with. That apart ample opportunity is available to the petitioner to substantiate his case either by examining himself or by producing evidence in support of his defence. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the rejection of the said application. Hence, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE