Mrs Josephine Allan Vs Mr Edgar Rajdayal Allan

MRS. JOSEPHINE ALLAN, D/O LATE M.T.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT 312 B, DS MAX SUSHEELA SCION, HENNUR, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MR. EDGAR RAJDAYAL ALLAN, S/O MR. ALLAN P.V., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶16

MRS. SHEILA ALLAN, W/O MR. ALLAN P.V., AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS RESIDING AT NO.14, MAIGANDADEVA MUDALIAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:21703 CRL.P No. 11279 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNNS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE HONBLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT I MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE IN CRL.MISC.NO.162/2017.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 Petitioner-wife in

¶27

Crl.Misc.No.162/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 whereby the application field by the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall the order dated 24.02.2020 and to permit the Petitioner to adduce further evidence was rejected by the learned Magistrate.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21703 CRL.P No. 11279 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Petitioner – wife has instituted the impugned proceedigns in Crl.Miscl. No.162/2017 against her Respondents - husband and mother in law under Section 12 of the protection of woman from domestic violence Act. 2005. The Respondents having entered appearance and contesting the proceedings, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and the matter was posted on 24.04.2020, on which date, she could not be present and her evidence was taken as closed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed the instant application seeking recall of the said order dated 24.04.2020 and for permission to adduce further evidence and it was opposed by the Respondents and culminated into impugned order dated 18.07.2024 dismissing the application. Aggrieved by which the Petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:21703 CRL.P No. 11279 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the

¶36

Trial Court has adopted an hyper technical approach in refusing to grant one more opportunity in favour of the Petitioner to adduce her further evidence without application of mind and as such, adopting a justice oriented approach to and in order to provide one more opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce further evidence, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order by recalling the impugned order and allow the application filed by the Petitioner and issue further directions to the trial Court.

¶37