Mr Ranjeeth Reddy vs Mr Narayanaswamy M on 14 February, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Ranjeeth Reddy vs Mr Narayanaswamy M on 14 February, 2017

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                              1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

                           BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

           CRIMINAL PETITION. No. 1004/2017



BETWEEN:
Mr. Ranjeeth Reddy,
S/o. M. Janardhan Reddy,
Partner, MJR Constructions,
Office at 1st floor, Plot No. 1000,
Khanamet, Madhapur,
Hyderabad -560081                        ... Petitioner

(By Sri. Ashok Hande, Advocate)

AND:
Mr. Narayanaswamy M.
S/o. Muniyappa, Aged about 56 years,
R/a # D6, "Kausthuba",
MJR Gulmar Avenue,
Belathur, Bidrahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk-562 112             ...Respondent

(By Sri. C.V. Annaiah, Advocate)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 09.01.2017
Annexure -D passed in C.C. No.4824/2016 by the
A.C.J.M. Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore rejecting the
recall application filed by petitioner u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. to
further cross examine PW-1 etc.

      This Criminal Petition is coming on for orders this
day, the court made the following:
                            2



                       ORDER

Sri.C.V. Annaiah, learned counsel submits that he has filed vakalat on behalf of the respondent in the office.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 09.01.2017 vide Annexure-D passed in C.C. No. 4824/2016 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.

4. The petitioner has been facing trial before the Court of the First A.C.J.M. at Bangalore for the alleged offences under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After the completion of the evidence of PW-1, the petitioner moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW-1 on the specific ground 3 that during the cross examination PW-1 has made certain denials, in spite of there being several signed documents. It is stated in the application that those documents were with the Income Tax Department and he has procured these documents recently after the cross examination of PW-1 and in order to defend effectively he is required to further cross examine PW-1 on those aspects. The learned Magistrate has rejected the application on the ground that PW-1 is exhaustively cross examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the defense taken up by him it was necessary to confront the documents which were procured by him from the Income Tax Department. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the documents which were procured by him are the receipts issued by the respondent-complainant and only by confronting the said documents he could prove his defense.

6. I find the submission of the learned counsel are totally misconceived. According to the petitioner the receipts which he has procured from the Income Tax Department have been issued to him by the complainant in acknowledgement of the receipt of the amount shown therein. If so, it is open for the petitioner to produce them as his documents having received the same from the complainant. Therefore, by rejecting the present application no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner either in putting forth his defense or in defending the case set up by the complainant. Therefore, no prejudice or injustice having been caused by the impugned order and efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner to prove his case by adducing evidence by entering into the witness box, petition is liable to be rejected.

7. For the above reasons this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE R*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court