Allowed¶37

M G Ravi Balagangadhar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Apr 2025CRL.P/5648/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 5648 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:17230; High Court of Karnataka (Hemant Chandangoudar J., 25.04.2025); recall of Investigating Officer P.W.14; Section 311 CrPC application; proviso to Section 162 CrPC; contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act; complainant P.W.1 denied specific suggestions; offences punishable under 498-A and 304(B) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act; S.C.No.1146/2011 c/w 1134/2012, XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46); order dated 22.03.2025 set aside; further cross-examination permitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.03.2025 in S.C.No.1146/2011 set aside; application for recalling P.W.14 allowed; petitioner permitted to further cross-examine P.W.14 on the next date of hearing, failing which the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. ¶37

M G Ravi Balagangadhar Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, for further cross-examination in order to contradict the denials made by P.W.1 (complainant).

¶28

Court's answer

Where the complainant (P.W.1) denied specific suggestions during cross-examination, the accused may be afforded a fair opportunity to contradict P.W.1 by confronting P.W.14 (Investigating Officer) with the relevant material; accordingly, a prima facie case for recalling P.W.14 for further cross-examination is made out.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Under the proviso to Section 162 Cr.P.C., any part of a prosecution witness's statement reduced into writing during investigation, if duly proved, may be used by the accused to contradict such witness in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶32

Key takeaways

In the interest of justice, the Trial Court's order rejecting the recall application is set aside, the application for recalling P.W.14 is allowed, and the petitioner is permitted to further cross-examine P.W.14 on the next date of hearing, failing which the Trial Court is to proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. (also filed under S. 528 BNNS) against the Trial Court's order dated 22.03.2025 in S.C.No.1146/2011 rejecting recall of P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, under S. 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination, sought in order to contradict the denials by the complainant P.W.1. Relying on the proviso to S. 162 Cr.P.C. read with S. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the High Court held that a prima facie case for recall was made out; petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and petitioner permitted to further cross-examine P.W.14 on the next date of hearing, failing which the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:17230 CRL.P No. 5648 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5648 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.G. RAVI BALAGANGADHAR, S/O M.B. GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.108 (11/A), 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, NETAJILAYOUT, CHANDRALAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 040.

¶9

(AS PER AADHAR CARD RAVI BALA GANGADHAR M.G AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.111, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. NETHAJILAYOUT, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 040).

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. KRISHNAMMA, W/O M.B. GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.108 (11/A), 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, NETAJILAYOUT, CHANDRALAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 040. (AS PER AADHAR CARD AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O GANGADHARAIAH, R/AT NO.11/1, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. NETHAJI LAYOUT, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 040).

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17230 CRL.P No. 5648 of 2025

¶13

M.G. ARUN, S/O M.B. GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NO.108 (11/A), 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, NETAJILAYOUT, CHANDRALAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 040.

¶14

(AS PER AADHAR CARD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O GANGADARAYYA M.B., R/AT NO.11/1, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. NETHAJILAYOUT, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 040).

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

SRI. M.G. NANJAPPA, S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE GRAMA, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 572 227.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.LAKSHMAN B., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2025 IN SC.NO.1146/2011 C/W 1134/2012 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XLV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498-A, 304(B) IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DP ACT,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17230 CRL.P No. 5648 of 2025

¶24

AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO RECALL PW 14 AND PERMIT TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW14.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice for the respondent-State.

¶28

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court on an application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking the recall of P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, for further cross-examination. The petitioner contended that during the cross-examination of P.W.1, the complainant, certain suggestions were denied, and in order to contradict those denials, it is necessary to further cross-examine P.W.14. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the complaint and the FIR do not constitute statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 162 of Cr.P.C. states that when any witness is called for the prosecution during any inquiry or trial, whose statement has been reduced into writing during investigation, any

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:17230 CRL.P No. 5648 of 2025

¶32

part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶33

In the present case, the petitioner seeks to further cross-examine P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, in relation to the statement recorded prior to the registration of the FIR, particularly because the complainant (P.W.1) denied specific suggestions during cross-examination. In such circumstances, in order to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity to contradict P.W.1 by confronting P.W.14 with the relevant material, a prima facie case for recalling P.W.14 for further cross-examination is made out.

¶34

In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the following order is passed:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶37

ii. The impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed in S.C.No.1146/2011 on the file of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Benglauru City (CCH46) is hereby set aside and the application filed for recalling P.W.14 is allowed.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:17230 CRL.P No. 5648 of 2025

¶40

iii. The petitioner is permitted to further cross examine P.W.14 on the next date of hearing. Failing which, the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

M G Ravi Balagangadhar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M G Ravi Balagangadhar 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

Nagesha Vs State of Karnataka

Malikarjun Y Babalennavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sathishgowda @ Siddarudha M J Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishnusharan Bhatt Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Veerabhadrappa M C Vs Smt Shruti K C

Nxtgen Datacenter and Cloud Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ninth Dimension It Solutions Pvt. Ltd.