ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the XXI ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.13178/2022 by allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused who is facing trial before the Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act and after pleading not guilty, the respondent adduced the evidence as PW.1 and during the cross-examination of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, the complainant has given some admission in the cross-examination and at that time, the respondent-complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the himself for leading further examination-inchief which was allowed by the trial Court without considering the objection raised by the petitioner-accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-accused is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the learned Magistrate has committed error in allowing the said application without considering the objection raised by the petitioner and by way of leading further examination-in-chief, the complainant tried to overcome the admission made in the cross-examination. If the said application is allowed, a great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-accused in the defence. Therefore, prayed for quashing the order and in support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Sunder Lal vs. Urmila Thakur. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant objected the petition and contended that before granting stay by this Court, the order passed by the trial Court has been acted upon. The complainant already further examined and marked some of the documents. Therefore, the petition becomes infructuous and cannot be considered. Learned counsel further contended that absolutely there is no prejudice would cause to the petitioner case as there is no admission made by the complainant in his cross-examination and there is nothing to overcome the admission made by him in the cross-examination. Therefore, the petition becomes infructuous and cannot be considered. Learned counsel further contended that absolutely there is no prejudice would cause to the petitioner case as there is no admission made by the complainant in his cross-examination and there is nothing to overcome the admission made by him in the cross-examination. There was some typographical error in the notice issued by the counsel for the complainant and it was stated by him in the cross-examination that there was a question put to him by the accused counsel to produce the documents, therefore, he wanted to produced those documents. Such being the case, the question of contending, the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal, does not arise. The matter is posted for cross-examination of PW.1 where the learned counsel for the accused is not ready to cross-examine PW.1 and on the other hand, he has filed an application for adjournment under Section 309 of Cr.P.C and indirectly threatened the trial Court as not to proceed with the proceedings in view of the stay granted by this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of records, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused facing the trial on the complaint filed by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has already examined as PW.1 and during the cross-examination, the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent for recalling himself as witness to lead further examination-in-chief which came to be allowed. It is pertinent to note, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was on 09.11.2022 and this Court granted stay only on 07.12.2022, but, in the meanwhile, the learned Magistrate has already examined PW.1 and executed the order under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, setting aside the order does not arise at this stage, as the complainant already further examined himself and marked further documents. However, in allowing the said application, whether the case of the petitioner-accused has been prejudiced which has to be looked into. However, in allowing the said application, whether the case of the petitioner-accused has been prejudiced which has to be looked into. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1, where, he has admitted in the cross-examination that there was a typographic mistake in the date of payment of loan to the accused and there was a question put to the complainant as to whether the petitioner could be able to produce the loan agreement. Further the complainant has stated that he can produce the loan agreement stated by him. Therefore, in order to produce the loan agreement, the respondent-complainant required to summon PW.1 for leading further examination in order to produce the document. 7. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that PW.1 ought to have allowed to lead further examination-in-chief after completion of the crossexamination and allowing the application in between the cross-examination is not correct. However, for the purpose of further examination-in-chief, whether the examination of PW.1 completely over or partly cross-examined, does not make any difference in allowing the application in respect of the stage of the pendency of the case. The very provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: "311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or. recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case". 8. In a judgment delivered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles while dealing with Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at paragraph No.17 which is as under : 17. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts: a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts: a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case? b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person. d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be.” ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right." On bare reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am in respectful agreement with the judgment delivered and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case. However, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, where there is no such admissions made by the complainant in the cross-examination and in order to overcome to the admissions, he himself recalled as witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has failed to make out the case that in view of recalling PW.1 for further examination-in-chief, how his case was prejudiced. Wherein, the petitioner has failed to make out a case regarding, how, the case was prejudiced and the question of setting aside the order of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. passed by the trial Court does not arise and on the other hand, the power of the Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. as in sparingly used by the trial Court in allowing the application. If at all, any admissions made by the complainant and it was adduced further evidence to over come admissions that can be considered by the trial Court during the final hearing of the case and even the Court can draw an adverse inference against the complainant. That apart, in the very provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the Court can invoke in order to meet the ends of justice and just decision of the case. Therefore, I am of the view, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceptable and there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the application filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and does not prejudice the case of the petitioner-accused in the defence. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.