Allowed¶44

Sri Dinesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2025CRL.P/10624/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC recall of witness (PW-10/CW-5) for further cross-examination; petition under Section 482 CrPC filed as Section 528 BNSS; Karnataka High Court sets aside Trial Court refusal dated 09.02.2023; one final opportunity to cross-examine on 10.07.2025 or date fixed by Trial Court; conditional on no further adjournment under any circumstances; justice-oriented approach; Special Case No.43/2019; VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru; decided 08.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.02.2023 set aside; application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed, permitting the petitioner/accused to recall and cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) on 10.07.2025 or on any date fixed by the Trial Court, without any further adjournment under any circumstances. ¶44

Sri Dinesh Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 of the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, rejecting the petitioner/accused's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-10(CW-5) for further cross-examination in Special Case No.43/2019, should be set aside.

¶26

Court's answer

Although it was undisputed that the petitioner/accused did not cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) even after sufficient opportunities, the Court, adopting a justice-oriented approach to provide one more opportunity in view of the assertion of bona fide reasons, deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner/accused to cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) on 10.07.2025 or on any date to be fixed by the Trial Court, without taking any adjournment.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, in Special Case No.43/2019, on the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is set aside.

¶44

Key takeaways

The application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, permitting the petitioner/accused to recall PW-10(CW-5), subject to the condition that the cross-examination shall be conducted on 10.07.2025 or on any date fixed by the Trial Court, without any further adjournment under any circumstances.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 10624 of 2024) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed under Section 528 BNSS, by the accused in Special Case No.43/2019 against the order dated 09.02.2023 of the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, rejecting his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall PW-10(CW-5) for further cross-examination: HELD, allowing the petition — though it was undisputed that the accused had not cross-examined PW-10(CW-5) even after sufficient opportunities, in view of his assertion that the omission was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach to afford one more opportunity; the impugned order was set aside and the accused permitted to cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) on 10.07.2025 or on any date fixed by the Trial Court, strictly without any further adjournment under any circumstances (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24864 CRL.P No. 10624 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10624 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. DINESH S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4521, NEAR GAYATHRI TEMPLE, NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 120.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KUMARASWAMY M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANJANGUD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGLORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSORE; AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24864 CRL.P No. 10624 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CRPC AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition by the accused in Special Case No.43/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused to recall PW-10(CW-5) for further cross-examination was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the matter is posted before the Trial Court on 10.07.2025 and if the impugned order is set aside and the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24864 CRL.P No. 10624 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW-10(CW-5), either on 10.07.2025 or any date to be fixed by the Trial Court, the petitioner would do so without taking any further adjournment under any circumstances, whatsoever and the impugned order may be set aside accordingly.

¶32

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) on 10.07.2025

¶33

or on any date to be fixed by the Trial Court, without taking any further adjournment under any circumstances, whatsoever.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner/accused did not cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) even after affording sufficient opportunities. However, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to crossexamine PW-10(CW-5) in the proceedings was due to

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:24864 CRL.P No. 10624 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner/accused to cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) on 10.07.2025 or on any date to be fixed by the Trial Court, without taking any adjournment, whatsoever.

¶39

In the result, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The Petition is allowed ;

¶42

ii) The impugned order dated

¶43

09.02.2023 passed by the VI Additional District

¶44

and Special Judge, Mysuru, in Special Case No.43/2019, on the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside;

¶45

iii) The application filed by the

¶46

petitioner/accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:24864 CRL.P No. 10624 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

is allowed, permitting the petitioner/accused to recall PW-10(CW-5), subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cross-examine PW-10(CW-5) on 10.07.2025 or on any date to

¶51

be fixed by the Trial Court, without taking any further adjournment, under any circumstances, whatsoever.

¶52

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶53

BMV*

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK

Sri Dinesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dinesh 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

Badachandraiah Devaraju @ B C Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Abhinav Lal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vasuki M S Vs State by Karnataka

Sri. Karthik Bharadwaj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kusumavathi Vs the Government of Karnataka

Jajjara Bharat Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka