Allowed

Sri Ravi @ Gobi Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2026CRL.P/10259/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.1 in a murder trial sought recall of the investigating officer (PW-22) for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; the trial court rejected it citing delay and the imminent Section 313 statement. The High Court quashed that order, allowing one further cross-examination on a single day, provided the 313 statement had not begun or been completed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.06.2026 in SC.No.759/2016 quashed; Section 311 application allowed subject to condition; cross-examination to be completed on a single day.

Sri Ravi @ Gobi Ravi Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37874 CRL.P No. 10259 of 2026

¶3

CNR: KAHC010475252026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10259 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAVI @ GOBI RAVI, S/O LATE MUNICHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.63, 1ST CROSS, B. RAMAIAH COLONY, BEHIND MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, NEAR MURULI TENT, MUTHYALANAGARA, GOKULA POST, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY YESHWANTHPURA P.S., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-01.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-66), BENGALURU, DATED 15.06.2026 IN SC.NO.759/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:37874 CRL.P No. 10259 of 2026

¶21

CNR: KAHC010475252026

¶22

PETITIONER U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. AND PERMIT HIM TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION OF CW-33/PW-22 IN SC.NO.759/2016, AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court which rejects the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking further cross-examination of CW-33/PW-22 in S.C.No.759/2016.

¶27

Heard Sri.Parashuram R Hattarakihal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶28

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶29

3.1. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime

¶30

No.82/2016, for offence punishable under Section 302 of the

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:37874 CRL.P No. 10259 of 2026

¶34

CNR: KAHC010475252026

¶35

IPC-murder. The matter is pending before the Court of Session in S.C.No.759/2016.

¶36

3.2. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of

¶37

the matter but the application being rejected. The application is filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking recall of PW-22 for further crossexamination, that comes to be rejected by the impugned order on the score that the matter is posted for recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows:

¶38

“Accused No.1 absent. EP filed allowed.

¶39

The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has filed the application stating that few important aspects were not questioned during the course of cross examination of PW22 and hence for valid defense, the further cross examination of PW22/ police inspector is necessary and if the application is not allowed, the accused will be put to hardship and irreparable loss. Accordingly prays to allow the application.

¶40

On the other hand the Learned PP has filed the objections stating that the application is not maintainable after completion of sec. 313 Cr.P.C., statement and more over the matter is of the year 2016. Accordingly prays to reject the application.

¶41

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶42

The point that arise for consideration is:-

¶43

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:37874 CRL.P No. 10259 of 2026

¶46

CNR: KAHC010475252026

¶47

Whether reasonable grounds exist to allow the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall PW22 police inspector as sought for?

¶48

My answer to the above point is as per the following:-

¶49

REASONS

¶50

As could be seen from the records the alleged offence is u/s.302 of IPC and the evidence of the prosecution was over on 23.01.2026 and it is posted for section 313 Cr.P.C., statement and the application came to be filed on 08.06.2026. The application filed is after long delay and bare averments that some important questions requires to be put to the PW22/I.O cannot be considered as material ground to seek order for further cross examination of PW22. Hence the application is devoid of merits as this is the case of the year 2016. Hence the following:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The application filed u/s.311 of Cr P.C., is hereby rejected.

¶53

For sec. 313 Cr.P.C, statement by 25.06.2026.”

¶54

The order though is bereft of reasons, one factor would assume significance is that if the concerned Court has begun recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, there can be no question of allowing of application under section 311 of Cr.P.C after the procedure under section 313 of Cr.P.C has commenced, but the application ought to have merited consideration in the light of the offence being the one punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37874 CRL.P No. 10259 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

CNR: KAHC010475252026

¶58

Therefore, to give one opportunity to the petitioner,

¶59

I deem it appropriate to allow the application filed with a rider that the petitioner cannot avail any benefit of this order, in the event, recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, has begun on or completed.

¶60

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

[I] Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶63

[II] The order dated 15.06.2026 in SC.No.759/2016 passed by LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-66), Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶64

[III] The application filed by the petitioner stands allowed, subject to the condition observed hereinabove.

¶65

[IV] The concerned Court shall see that the crossexamination gets completed on a single day and not permit the petitioner to drag the proceedings any further.

¶66

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:37874 CRL.P No. 10259 of 2026

¶69

CNR: KAHC010475252026

¶70

Ordered accordingly.

¶71

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶72

CBC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11

Sri Ravi @ Gobi Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi @ Gobi Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Joseph Chacko Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kashif Saleem Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nizar Ahmed Vs Mr Gokuldas Bhandarkar

Dr Mamatha H S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Syed Irfan Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Samuel Okon Vs State of Karnataka