Partly allowed

Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021CRL.P/3628/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of order rejecting application to recall P.W.1 and P.W.6. Court allowed partial recall of Investigating Officer P.W.6 subject to payment of Rs.2000 costs, noting he was not cross-examined due to counsel absence.

What did the court decide?

P.W.6 recalled subject to payment of Rs.2,000/-; no further adjournment allowed for cross-examination.

Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3628/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJA, S/O LAKSHMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶9

VAJRAMUDI, S/O LAKSHMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MANAGAL VILLAGE, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI KADIWAL V.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, SHO, BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN’S PS, BENGALURU -560 004. REPRESENTED BY GOVT PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

SMT. SUMITHRA B.N., W/O NAGARAJ M.L., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, 4^TH CROSS,

¶15

¶16

MARUTHI NAGARA, MAHADESWARA MAIN ROAD, HEROHALLI, BENGALURU -560091. … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF LEARNED II ACMM, BENGALURU DATED 30.09.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3863/2014 AND ORDER FOR RECALLING OF P.W.1 FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION AND PW6/CW-8 FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE PETITIONER ADVOCATE.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

¶22

this Court to set aside the order dated 30.09.2019 passed in C.C.No.3863/2014 rejecting the application filed by the accused

¶23

for recalling of P.W.1 for further cross-examination and for cross-examination of P.W.6.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners before respondent No.1 and based on the complaint, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the issuance of process, trial was

¶25

¶26

conducted and P.W.1 and P.W.6 were examined. P.W.1 was cross-examined twice and P.W.6 – Investigating Officer was not cross-examined. Hence, the petitioners filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of P.W.1 and P.W.6 and the same was rejected vide order dated 30.09.2019. The Trial Court while rejecting the application assigned the reason that sufficient opportunity is given and P.W.1 is cross-examined twice and on 11.04.2018 he was fully cross-examined. The Investigating Officer who was present before the Court was examined on 15.03.2019 and the learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the witness and when the matter is posted for arguments, at the belated stage, an application is filed that too after recording 313 statement of the accused. Hence, there is no valid grounds assigned in the application.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the dispute is between husband and wife and P.W.1 is the wife, who has been examined before the Court and some of the questions are not put to P.W.1. Hence, an application is filed for recalling. The other contention of the learned counsel for

¶28

¶29

the petitioners is that P.W.6 - Investigating Officer, who has been examined, on that day the counsel was absent and hence could not cross-examine P.W.6 and the cross-examination of P.W.6 is necessary.

¶30

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 – State would submit that at the belated stage when the matter was posted for arguments, an application was filed and the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that at the belated stage an application is filed and there are no valid grounds.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶32

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 – State and also on perusal of the impugned order, it discloses that P.W.1 was examined and thereafter time was taken and after taking sufficient time, P.W.1 was crossexamined on 11.04.2018. It is observed by the Trial Court that P.W.1 was fully cross-examined. P.W.6 has been examined subsequently and got marked the documents and the counsel was not present before the Court and did not cross-examine P.W.6. Having taken note of the fact that P.W.6 – Investigating

¶33

¶34

Officer was not cross-examined and subsequently after recording of 313 statement when the matter was posted for arguments, an application is filed, an opportunity has to be given to the accused to cross-examine P.W.6. I do not find any reasons to recall P.W.1, who has already been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused and at the belated stage, the application was filed that too when the matter was posted for arguments. P.W.6 is an official witness and he has to leave his work and appear before the Court for cross-examination. Hence, reasonable cost has to be imposed to recall P.W.6.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The petition is allowed partly.

¶39

(ii) P.W.6 is recalled subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to him. If P.W.6 is entitled

¶40

for excess amount, he can claim the same.

¶41

(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to cross-examine P.W.6 without

¶42

¶43

seeking any further adjournment on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- on the next date of hearing.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharatesh Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri A.C. Chennaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. C Bharathi Vs Smt. K Manjula

Sri. Hemanth Kumar L Vs State by

Sri E Swamy Gowda Vs State of Karnataka