IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9726/2018 BETWEEN:
1. RAVICHANDRA S/O LATE MANJU SETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O THIPPAGONDANAHALLI TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK- 582 108 2. SMT.PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE MANJU SETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O THIPPAGONDANAHALLI TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK- 582 108 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE ) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA- 582 101 REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
BANGALORE.
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.RAICHAIAH, HCGP) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 11.10.2018 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.36/2016 C/W S.C.NO.86/2016 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. FOR THE FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for orders, by consent of learned advocates, it is taken up for final disposal. Order passed rejecting the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this petition. Since trial has been held up in S.C. NO.86/2016 on account of pendency of the present petition, matter has been heard finally.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that an application came to be filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 for recall of PWs.3, 4, 8, 11 and 12 and it came to be rejected. It would indicate that reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for rejection of recall of PWs.4, 8 and 11 on the ground that said witnesses were cross examined on different dates. Insofar as PW3 is concerned, admittedly he has not been cross examined who is a witness to the spot mahazar – Ex.P.6. Likewise PW12 has also not been cross examined though he was present on all the dates of hearing. However, no reasons have been assigned by the accused in the application for recalling said witnesses. Since petitioners have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, this Court is of the considered view that an opportunity deserves to be extended to the accused to cross examine these two material witnesses viz., PWs 3 and 12 by putting the petitioners also on terms for ensuring that proceedings should not get unnecessary delayed before the trial Court.
4. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed in part.
(ii) Order dated 11.10.2018 is set-aside in part and application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners is allowed in part by permitting the petitioners to cross examine PWs.3 and 12 on payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- to each of the witnesses.
(iii) Prosecution shall keep these two witnesses i.e., PW.3 and PW.12 present on the next date of hearing before the trial Court and on that day the petitioners shall go on with the cross examination of the witnesses viz., PWs 3 and 12. Payment of cost shall be condition precedent for permitting the petitioners to proceed with the cross examination.
(iv) In view of petition having been disposed of, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE brn