IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.617/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/AT GAJULPET BAGALUR, SARJAPUR ROAD HOSUR TALUK - 635 103 TAMILNADU STATE.
2. SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/AT GAJULPET BAGALUR, SARJAPUR ROAD HOSUR TALUK - 635 103 TAMILNADU STATE.
(BY SRI. HONNAPPA S., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O CHIKKA MUNIVENKATAPPA R/AT THOTADA MANE THIPPASANDRA ROAD BEHIND VARTHU P.S., BANGALORE - 560 087.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.N. ARAVINDA NAVADA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:01.08.2017 IN C.C.NO.11106/2015 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Honnappa S, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. K.N.Aravinda Navada, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Order sheet of the trial Court which has been made available by the learned counsel for respondent would disclose that on more than 2 occasions P.W.1 was recalled and despite granting opportunities on more than 17 occasions, P.W.1 has not been cross-examined. As such by impugned order learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall.
3. In the normal circumstances this Court would have extended an olive branch to permit the petitioners to cross-examine P.W.1, but in the facts obtained in the present case, it would clearly disclose that not only proceedings have been dragged on on one pretext or the other, but petitioners had also ensured to remain absent themselves before the trial Court and thereby had not allowed the trail Court to frame charge or record statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. This would only indicate that trial Court inspite of granting several opportunities was left with no other option had to dismiss the application taking note of the fact that complainant is a senior citizen and has been appearing almost on all the dates of hearing and thereby petitioners-accused have ensured that proceedings are protracted for no fault of the complainant.
For the reasons aforestated, I find no good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE DR