IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO.5605/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVI @ N. RAVIKUMAR, S/O LATE SRI.NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/2, BELLANDUR GATE, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 034.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY KORAMANGALA POLICE BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SMT. MAHITHA, W/O SRI.RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.58, RAMA TEMPLE ROAD, ANNASANDRAPALYA, BANGALORE – 560 017.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.P.B.AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 ) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 15.02.2014 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC–VIII, BANGALORE CITY, IN CRL.RP.NO.14/13 AND DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.27215/2005 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION U/S 311 OF CR.P.C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner was accused No.1 in C.C.No.27215/2005. In the said proceeding, the complainant was examined as PW1. She was examined in chief and the matter was set down for cross-examination. During her chief-examination, she fully supported the case of the prosecution but resiled from her previous statement in her cross-examination. On account of the above, prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW1. Learned Magistrate allowed the said application. While allowing the said application, learned Magistrate permitted the prosecution to re-open its evidence and has recalled PWs.1 and 2 for further evidence. The prosecution having not sought for recalling PW2 for further evidence, the impugned order to this extent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in so far as recalling PW2 for further evidence is set aside. The application stands allowed only to the extent of recalling of PW1 for further examination.
All other contentions urged by the parties are left open.
SD/- JUDGE TL