The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order allowing a witness examination under Cr.P.C. 311 but awarded costs to the petitioner for the belated application, directing disposal within three months.
Impugned order upheld subject to respondent paying Rs. 10,000/- cost to petitioner; case to be disposed within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6759 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
T. KESHAV PRASAD , S/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 'SHRI NILAYA', 2ND MAIN, 2ND FLOOR, HEMAVATHI NAGAR, HASSAN - 523 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. N. DORESWAMY , S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 935, 3RD MAIN, E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2018 IN C.C.NO.1188/2012 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in C.C.No.1188/2012, by which an application filed by the respondent under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was allowed.
listed for arguments. However, on 03.12.2015, the respondent filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for further examination-in-chief, which was allowed on 19.10.2016 and the respondent was further examined on 15.04.2017 and he marked certain documents. Later, the respondent filed another application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the stage of the case and permit him to examine a witness. The petitioner opposed the said application, contending that the application is highly belated, mischievous and designed to protract the proceedings. The Trial Court, vide order dated 15.02.2018 allowed the said application and recalled the stage of the case and permitted the respondent to examine a witness. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
Cr.P.C was recorded. He submitted that the petitioner had stated in his statement that the cheque in question is concocted and fabricated and therefore, the respondent cannot be permitted to plug the loopholes in his case. Even otherwise, he claimed that the respondent was given ample opportunity from 20.08.2015 to adduce evidence. He also contends that the witness who sought to be examined by the respondent was already cited in the private complaint and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to examine him.
submits that, due to inadvertence, the witness, though cited in the private complaint, could not be examined before the Court. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if further examinationin-chief is permitted.
NC: 2023:KHC:32849 CRL.P No. 6759 of 2018
the private complaint that the transaction between the petitioner and respondent was witnessed by a person, named, C.K.Padmanabha, who was a chartered accountant. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have taken proper and diligent steps to examine the said witness before closing his side. The respondent, after closing his side, was given an opportunity to lead further evidence on 19.10.2016. However, the respondent did not utilize the opportunity and examine the witness. However, after the closure of the evidence of P.W.1 and after recording the statement of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the respondent filed an application to examine another witness. It is therefore a deliberate attempt by the respondent to protract the proceedings. Though the Trial Court was justified in allowing the respondent to examine the witness, the same could not have gone without awarding
NC: 2023:KHC:32849 CRL.P No. 6759 of 2018
cost to the petitioner for protracting for proceedings.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The impugned order is upheld but subject to payment of cost to the petitioner.
iii. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing the respondent to recall the stage of case for further examination under Cr.P.C. 311 should be upheld despite the belated application.
Whether the respondent, who had an earlier opportunity to examine a witness but failed to do so after closing his case, can be permitted to lead that evidence post-Section 313 statement.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
T. KESHAV PRASAD
M. N. DORESWAMY
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
