ORDER : Mohammad Nawaz, J. In all these petitions, parties are one and the same. Petitioners are the accused and respondent is the complainant, before the trial Court. 2. The learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2025, has rejected the applications filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in all the petitions. 3. Petitioners are seeking to set aside the impugned orders and to allow them to further cross-examine PW1/respondent, and PW2. 4. All these petitions arise out of the same issue, wherein the proceedings are initiated before the trial Court by the respondent/complainant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by the accused. The matter before the trial Court is at the stage of arguments. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, while preparing for final arguments, it came to light that certain crucial questions concerning the letter dated 12.08.2017 and the very authority of PW-1 to depose had not been put to the witnesses during earlier cross- examination and these questions go to the root of the matter and are vital for eliciting the truth, as they directly touch upon the core issues in dispute. It is submitted that sworn statement of PW1 was treated as examination-in-chief and PW-1 was subsequently cross-examined; thereafter the petitioner’s evidence was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. During preparation for arguments, upon receiving instructions, counsel noticed that these essential questions were inadvertently left out despite being necessary to establish the petitioner’s defence. Therefore, an application was immediately filed to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for limited further cross-examination. However, the trial court, without appreciating the crux of the application or the relevance of the proposed questions, mechanically rejected the same. 6. It is further contended that the omission was identified only at the stage of preparing for final arguments, and the settled legal position recognizes that even at the appellate stage, the Court may permit additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. when required to uncover the truth. 6. It is further contended that the omission was identified only at the stage of preparing for final arguments, and the settled legal position recognizes that even at the appellate stage, the Court may permit additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. when required to uncover the truth. Hence, the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the recall sought under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was neither to fill lacunae nor to introduce any new material, but only to confront PW-1 and PW-2 with a document already on record and to test PW-1’s competency to depose both being matters essential for a just decision. 7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that any application seeking recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must clearly and specifically state the reasons necessitating such recall, and a party cannot be permitted to rely on vague or generalized grounds to reopen evidence. He contended that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as a tool to protract the proceedings or to fill up lacunae in the defence at a belated stage of the trial, especially after the matter has progressed to the stage of arguments. The power under Section 311 is discretionary and intended solely to ensure that the ends of justice are met, and therefore must be exercised with great caution and circumspection and in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any compelling reason for recalling PW-1 and PW-2, and hence the trial court has rightly rejected the application. 8. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioners to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 (complainant) and PW-2 is concerned, it is noted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 11.11.2025, has rejected the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., assigning detailed reasons for such rejection. 9. The learned Magistrate has observed that the complainant has instituted ten cases against the accused arising out of the same transaction, and Ex.P1 to P10, including the letter dated 12.08.2017, were produced along with the sworn statement at the inception of the proceedings. The complaint contains specific pleadings with regard to the said letter, and the document has been part of the record from the beginning in all connected cases. PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-examined on several dates after the accused took multiple adjournments. The defence evidence was also completed and the complainant’s arguments on merits were concluded on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025. The complaint contains specific pleadings with regard to the said letter, and the document has been part of the record from the beginning in all connected cases. PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-examined on several dates after the accused took multiple adjournments. The defence evidence was also completed and the complainant’s arguments on merits were concluded on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025. Thereafter, the accused again sought four adjournments to address final arguments, and only during this prolonged stage the present application came to be filed. It is further observed that the case is more than seven years old, the accused has admittedly signed the letter dated 12.08.2017 as well as the cheques in question, and the complainant—being a senior citizen—has been compelled to undergo prolonged litigation. The learned Magistrate has therefore concluded that the present application is an afterthought, intended merely to delay the proceedings, and thus refused to entertain the same. 10. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature, however to be exercised with caution and circumspection, only for strong and valid reasons. Though the Court has wide power to recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the Court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of process of law. 11. The letter dated 12.8.2017, relied by the complainant has been marked in each case as exhibit. From the records, it is seen that PW-1 had led his chief- examination on 20.03.2018 and 20.08.2019, and was thereafter fully cross-examined by the accused on 10.07.2023 and 21.09.2023. Likewise, PW-2 lead his chief-examination on 07.11.2023 and 12.12.2023 and was fully cross-examined on 29.01.2024. Subsequent to the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the defence evidence was also led. DW-1 was examined on 01.07.2024 and was fully cross-examined on 01.07.2024 and 28.02.2025. After the complainant’s counsel concluded arguments on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, the matter was posted for the accused arguments. However, the accused sought repeated adjournments on 04.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 18.09.2025, 10.10.2025 and 06.11.2025. It is also evident from the order sheet that on 18.09.2025, the accused engaged a new counsel who filed No-Objection Vakalatnama and sought further time to address arguments. After the complainant’s counsel concluded arguments on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, the matter was posted for the accused arguments. However, the accused sought repeated adjournments on 04.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 18.09.2025, 10.10.2025 and 06.11.2025. It is also evident from the order sheet that on 18.09.2025, the accused engaged a new counsel who filed No-Objection Vakalatnama and sought further time to address arguments. Even thereafter, adjournments were sought on 10.10.2025 and 06.11.2025, and on the latter date the present applications to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for further cross-examination came to be filed. 12. The material on record reveals that PW1 and PW2 were thoroughly cross-examined by the accused. After cross-examination of the witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused was afforded opportunity to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, he was fully cross-examined. After the arguments of the complainant, when the matter was posted for the arguments of the accused he took several adjournments. The accused engaged another counsel and sought further time. Thereafter, filed the applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 and 2. 13. The accused was granted sufficient time and he has cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 and thereafter he has lead evidence on his behalf. In fact, it is the contention of the respondent’s counsel that in the cross-examination, the accused has admitted the issuance of and signatures on the cheques and also the signatures on letter dated 12.8.2017. The said aspect, though has to be decided by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the applications filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitions are dismissed. 14. The observations made in the order are confined to the disposal of this petition.