Allowed¶41

Sri Senthil Sangay Raj, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2025CRL.P/13304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC recall of witness; cross-examination of victim PW.1; POCSO Act 2012; S.376 IPC; Spl.C.C.No.166/2020; FTSC III Bengaluru Rural District; CRL.P No. 13304 of 2024; S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS petition; justice oriented approach; automatic recall clause; Karnataka High Court; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; order dated 14.11.2024 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 14.11.2024 set aside; application under Section 311 CrPC allowed permitting the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court without adjournment, with automatic recall of the order and dismissal of the petition if the petitioner fails to cross-examine on the fixed date. ¶41

Sri Senthil Sangay Raj, Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC (filed under Section 528 BNSS) should be allowed by setting aside the Trial Court's order dated 14.11.2024 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 CrPC to recall PW.1 for cross-examination in Spl.C.C.No.166/2020. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Adopting a justice-oriented approach, and having regard to the petitioner's assertion that his failure to cross-examine PW.1 earlier was due to bonafide reasons and sufficient cause (cross-examination of PW.2 having continued upto 4.45 p.m.), the Court set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 and allowed the petitioner's application, permitting him to cross-examine PW.1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court without taking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C stands allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cross-examine PW.1 without fail and without taking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court.

¶43

Key takeaways

If the petitioner fails to cross-examine PW.1 on the date fixed by the Trial Court, the order stands automatically recalled and the petition shall stand dismissed without further orders and without reference to the Bench.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), by oral order dated 16.06.2025 in CRL.P No. 13304 of 2024 (filed under S. 482 CrPC / S. 528 BNSS), allowed the petition of the accused in Spl.C.C.No.166/2020 (offence under S. 376 IPC r/w Sections 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 7, 8, 11(i), 11(ii), 11(iv) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012) and set aside the Trial Court's (Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC III Bengaluru Rural District) order dated 14.11.2024 rejecting his application dated 28.10.2024 under S. 311 CrPC to recall PW.1, the victim, for cross-examination. Taking a justice-oriented approach on the petitioner's plea of bonafide reasons and sufficient cause (cross-examination of PW.2 having gone on upto 4.45 p.m.), the Court permitted cross-examination of PW.1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court without any adjournment, clarifying that failure to cross-examine on the fixed date would result in automatic recall of the order and dismissal of the petition without further orders.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:20657 CRL.P No. 13304 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13304 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SENTHIL SANGAY RAJ, S/O SAVARIYAPPAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR BALDWIN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NEAR VBHC APARTMENTS, BYGADADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BY ANEKAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

A. THEENA THAYALAN, S/O ALAGARSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.705, 29TH BLOCK, VBHC APARTMENT, BYGADADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:20657 CRL.P No. 13304 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BANGALORE DIST. - 562 106.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K, HCGP FOR R1)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2024 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION DATED 28.10.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.311 OF CRPC IN SPL.C.C.NO.166/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC III BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.311 OF CRPC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.166/2020 for the offence under Sections 376 of IPC r/w Sections 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 7, 8, 11(i), 11(ii), 11(iv) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, the victim was examined as PW.1 and the father/ de-facto complainant was examined as PW.2. The petitioner cross-examined PW.2 and could not crossexamined PW.1 and as such, filed instant application seeking to

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:20657 CRL.P No. 13304 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

recall PW.1 for cross-examination. The said application filed by the petitioner to recall PW.1-Kumari T.Vennila has been rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.166/2020. Accordingly, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order, will indicate that the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that no indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioner, since PW.1 was the victim and should not be repeatedly called to the Court for the purpose of giving her testimony. However, having regard to the assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to cross-examine PW.1 earlier was on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, inasmuch as he was only in the position to cross-examine the father/PW.2, which went on upto 4.45 p.m., on account of which, he could not cross examine PW.1 resulting in her being discharged, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and set aside the impugned order and allow the application filed by the petitioner/accused and permit him to cross-examine PW.1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:20657 CRL.P No. 13304 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Court without taking any adjournment under any circumstances

¶39

whatsoever. As a result, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The petition is hereby allowed.

¶42

ii. The impugned order dated 14.11.2024 is hereby set aside.

¶43

iii. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C stands allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cross examine PW.1 without fail and without taking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court.

¶44

iv. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not cross examine PW.1 on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court, this order stands automatically recalled and the present petition shall stand dismissed without further orders and without reference to the Bench.

¶45

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK

Sri Senthil Sangay Raj, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Senthil Sangay Raj, 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

Sri. Ramesh Chander Somani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Karthikesh N C Vs Sri Lingaiah Setty B v

Shakil Ansari Sarkar @ Sarkar Vs State of Karnataka

Rahul B J @ Dhoni Vs State by

Sri J M Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Changanlal Vs State of Karnataka