Sri Shiva @ Shivaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2025CRL.P/10913/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy trial Article 21; witness non-appearance; closure of prosecution evidence; coercive measures to secure witnesses; Section 354A IPC; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; CC No.52791/2019; X Addl. CJM Bangalore; expeditious disposal of criminal trial; Karnataka High Court; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:29262.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; Trial Court directed to expedite CC No.52791/2019, to secure the attendance of the complainant and prosecution witnesses (adopting coercive measures if necessary), with liberty to close prosecution evidence if they continue to remain absent despite safeguards being exhausted. ¶¶53

Sri Shiva @ Shivaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court should be directed to decide the proceedings pending in CC No.52791/2019 as expeditiously as possible. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

Despite repeated efforts by the Trial Court, including issuance of summons and warrants, the persistent non-appearance of the complainant and witnesses has resulted in an impasse with no meaningful progress, leaving the Court with no option but to issue appropriate directions.

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

Pendency of a criminal case over an inordinate period, without effective steps to secure the presence of material witnesses, results in mental agony and stigma for the accused and infringes his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to take all effective and expeditious steps, and to adopt coercive measures if necessary in accordance with law, to secure the attendance of the complainant and the witnesses without any further delay.ratio¶¶45
If the complainant and the witnesses continue to remain absent despite all procedural safeguards and recourse being exhausted, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, including closure of prosecution evidence, in accordance with law.ratio¶¶45
Delays in trial defeat the very object of criminal jurisprudence and undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system; timely adjudication is essential.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.PC (filed u/S 528 BNSS) by the accused in CC No.52791/2019 (offence punishable under S.354A IPC) before the X Addl. CJM, Bangalore, seeking expeditious disposal. Charge sheet of 2019; charges framed; discharge application rejected; complainant and prosecution witnesses repeatedly absent despite summons and warrants from 12.12.2024. Held: such protracted pendency causes mental agony and stigma and infringes the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21; Trial Court directed to take effective steps, including coercive measures, to secure witness attendance, with liberty to close prosecution evidence if absences persist. Petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10913 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.SHIVA @ SHIVARAJU S/O SHIVAMALLU AGED 27 YEARS RESIDING AT SUNDRAHALLI CHIKKILUR CHAMRAJNAGAR KARNATAKA - 571440

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001

¶15

SMT.NOOPUR MITTAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O ABHISHEK SHIVHARE R/AT NO.732, 11^TH MAIN 8^TH CROSS, HAL 2^ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA-560038

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R.1; NOTICE TO R.2 IS D/W V/O/D 29.07.2025)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE AN ORDER, OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE COURT OF THE HONBLE X ADDL.CJM, BANGALORE TO DISPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.52791/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) WITHIN A FIXED TIME FRAME AS EXPEDITIOUSLY POSSIBLE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking direction against the Trial Court to decide the proceedings pending in CC No.52791/2019 as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2.

¶31

The petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused in the present proceedings, is constrained to approach this Court invoking its jurisdiction, seeking appropriate directions to ensure the expeditious disposal of the pending criminal case. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. It is his grievance that despite the framing of charges and issuance of summons and even warrants to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses commencing from 12.12.2024, there has been a consistent failure on their part to appear before the Trial Court and tender evidence. The records further disclose that the charge sheet in the present case was submitted

¶32

as far back as in the year 2019. The petitioner's application seeking discharge was also considered and

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

rejected by the learned Trial Court, thereby necessitating a full-fledged trial.

¶36

It is trite law that when a citizen is accused of having committed a serious offence such as that punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, the onus is squarely on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused through cogent and credible evidence. It is equally incumbent upon the Trial Court to ensure that the proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unreasonable delay. A timely adjudication is essential not only to serve the ends of justice but also to ensure that, in the event of conviction, appropriate and proportionate punishment is imposed. Delays in trial defeat the very object of criminal jurisprudence and undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system.

¶37

At the same time, the rights of the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, cannot be relegated to the background. Subjecting the accused to

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

protracted criminal proceedings, without any progress in trial owing to the continued absence of the complainant and prosecution witnesses, amounts to an injustice in itself. The pendency of a criminal case over an inordinate period, without effective steps being taken to secure the presence of material witnesses, results in not only mental agony and stigma for the accused but also infringes upon his fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is imperative that in prosecutions involving allegations under Section 354A of IPC, where the stakes are high for both the complainant and the accused, the Trial Court must demonstrate greater alacrity in securing the attendance of witnesses and proceeding with the trial.

¶41

Upon a meticulous perusal of the records, this Court finds that despite repeated efforts made by the Trial Court to secure the presence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses including the issuance of summons and warrants there has been no meaningful progress in

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the matter. The persistent non-appearance of the complainant and witnesses has resulted in an impasse, defeating the purpose of criminal adjudication. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to issue appropriate directions to the learned Trial Court to take all effective and expeditious steps to ensure the presence of the complainant and the witnesses without any further delay. The Trial Court is directed to adopt coercive measures, if necessary, in accordance with law, to secure their attendance. Furthermore, in the event the complainant and the witnesses continue to remain absent despite all procedural safeguards and recourse being exhausted, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, including closure of prosecution evidence, in accordance with law. The objective is to ensure that the petitioner is not indefinitely compelled to

¶46

appear before the Court on every adjourned date without any fruitful progress in trial, and that the criminal

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 10913 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

proceedings are brought to a logical conclusion within a

¶51

reasonable timeframe.

¶52