Yamanursab S/O Hasansab Nadaf Urf Hanchinal Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101709 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YAMANURSAB S/O. HASANSAB NADAF URF HANCHINAL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: TELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARNAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH BETAGERI TOWN PS.

¶13

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

YAMANURSAB ALLASAB NADAF, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BELADADI VILLAGE, TQ: GADAG – 582 101, DIST: GADAG.

¶15

HASANSAB S/O. FAKIRSAAB NADAF @ URF HANCHINAL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: TELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶16

RAMAJAVVA RAMAJANBI HASANSAB NADAF URF HANCHIN @ RAMAZAVVA @ RAMAZANA

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶19

W/O. HASANSAB, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: TELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶20

BANAVVA @ BANUBI W/O. HASANSAB NADAF @ HANCHINAL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: TELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶21

FAKRUSAB @ FAKIRSAB S/O. HASANSAB NADAF HANCHINAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: TELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶22

BUDDIMA @ MAMTAJ W/O. JEEVNASAB NADAF @ HANCHINAL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: TELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; V/O DATED: 09.09.2024, NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 08.02.2024 ON I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. FOR RECALL PW 3 TO 5 AND 11 FOR CROSS EXAMINATION IN SC NO 18/2019 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, GADAG VIDE AS ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order dated 08.02.2024 passed in S.C.No.18/2019 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, whereunder, the application filed by the accused persons under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PWs-3 to 5 and 11 came to be rejected.

¶32

The petitioner and other accused persons were facing trial for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 307, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC in S.C.No.18/2019 pending before Additional District and Sessions Court, Gadag.

¶33

In the said criminal case, the prosecution has examined PWs-3 to 5 and 11. On the date fixed for crossexamination of the PWs-3 to 5 and 11, the counsel for accused remained absent and cross examination was taken as nil. The petitioner and other accused filed

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶35

application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PWs.3 to 5 and 11 for cross examination. The said prayer

¶36

of the counsel for the petitioner/accused came to be allowed by imposing cost. On the date fixed for cross examination, i.e. on 17.01.2024, the counsel for accused persons remained absent and cross examination of PWs.3 to 5 and 11 was taken as nil. Thereafter, the counsel for accused persons filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PWs-3 to 5 and 11 for cross examination. The prosecution has filed objections to the said application. Learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application by impugned order dated 08.02.2024. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner/accused in this present petition.

¶37

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶38

learned AGA for respondent No.1-State.

¶39

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend

¶40

that offences alleged against the petitioner includes offence under Section 307 of IPC and it is a heinous

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶42

offence. If the petitioner and other accusers persons were not allowed to cross examine PWs.3 to 5 and 11, they will put to irreparable loss and injustice. He further submits that petitioner and other accused are ready to pay the cost of the witnesses. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶43

Learned AGA for respondent No.1 would submit that inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the counsel for petitioner/accused has not cross-examined PWs-3 to 5 and 11 and they have not paid the cost imposed by the trial Court earlier. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application by the impugned order. With this, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶46

One of the offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused is 307 of IPC. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that inspite of granting opportunities, counsel for accused persons has not cross examined PWs-3 to 5 and 11 and also not paid the cost imposed by the Trial Court. As offence alleged against the accused persons is under Section 307 of IPC and other offences, the accused persons deserves an opportunity to cross examine PWs-3 to 5 and 11 by imposing cost.

¶47

9. In the result, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed in S.C.No.18/2019 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is set aside.

¶50

iii. The application filed by petitioner and other accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking recall of PWs-3 to 5 and 11 stands

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6662 CRL.P No. 101709 of 2024

¶52

allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- each to PWs-3 to 5 and 11.

¶53

iv. PWs-3 to 5 and 11 are recalled for cross examination.

¶54

v. The accused persons shall deposit the said cost and thereafter, the trial Court shall secure the presence of PWs-3 to 5 and 11 for cross examination.

¶55

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶56

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Yamanursab S/O Hasansab Nadaf Urf Hanchinal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamanursab S/O Hasansab Nadaf Urf Hanchinal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddarayi S/O. Balappa Patil, Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjudevi Agarwal W/O Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs Slv Securities

Sri. Komal Kumar Jain S/O Shantilal Jain Vs Benaka Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

Jafar Sharif S/O Yusuf Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Faizan Fairoz Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Slv Mart Vs Adujudicating Officer