SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Amaresh Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.630/2018

BETWEEN:

1. SRI AMARESH KUMAR
S/O G. RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.14/62, II MAIN
NANJAPPA LAYOUT
ADUGODI,
BENGALURU-560030.

2. G. RAMAREDDY
S/O GURUREDDY
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
NO.14/62, II MAIN
NANJAPPA LAYOUT
ADUGODI,
BENGALURU-560030.

3. SMT. N. SAKAMMA
W/O G. RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
NO.14/62, II MAIN
NANJAPPA LAYOUT
ADUGODI,
BENGALURU-560030.

4. SMT. BHARATHI
W/O M. SRINIVASAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.41-2, KONAPPANA
AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC
CITY (P), BENGALURU-100.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.P. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
2

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN
POLICE STATION
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU CITY
NOW REP. BY STATE P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

2. SMT. R.V BINDU
W/O AMARESH KUMAR
R/O 37, 1ST CROSS, 25TH MAIN
1ST SECTOR, H.S.R. LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560034.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 10.04.2018 NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN U/S 311 OF
CR.P.C IN C.C.NO.3527/2006 TO RECALL THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES P.W.S 3 TO 7 FOR CROSS-
EXAMINATION BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND
OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3

ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits

that since there has been inordinate delay on the part of

accused persons also, petitioners would compensate the

witnesses namely, P.W.3 to P.W.7 with such costs, as

may be determined by this Court and same would be

deposited. Placing the said submission on record,

matter is taken up for consideration.

2. Having heard the learned Advocates

appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would

disclose that witnesses – P.W.3 to P.W.7 were examined

on the following dates:

Date of examination-
Witnesses
in-chief
P.W.3 01.02.2013
P.W.4 10.07.2014
P.W.5 07.05.2017
P.W.6 13.07.2015
P.W.7 07.05.2015

3. P.W.4 and P.W.6 have been partly cross

examined by counsel for accused. As rightly observed by
4

trial Court though sufficient opportunity had been

granted to the accused for cross-examination, they have

not cross examined said witnesses within time granted.

In fact, no cogent reasons have been assigned in the

application for recalling of said witnesses. Though it is

stated that counsel appearing for accused could not

appear on the previous date since he was held up in

another Court, long delay from 2013 to 2018 has

remained unexplained.

4. Be that as it may. Petitioners being accused

persons and are facing the charge for offences

punishable under Section 498A IPC r/w Section 3 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, one more opportunity

deserves to be granted to the accused. However, at the

same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that

witnesses, if recalled, will have to again appear before

the Court below for no fault. Hence, they will have to be

suitably compensated by directing the

petitioners/accused to pay heavy costs to the said

witnesses.

5

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Order dated 11.12.2017 dismissing the

application filed by petitioners under

Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in

C.C.No.3527/2006 to recall the

witnesses – P.W.3 to P.W.7 by II Addl.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru, is hereby set aside and said

application is hereby allowed subject to

following conditions:

(a) petitioners shall deposit a sum of

`1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

only) before the trial Court to be

paid as costs to each of the

witnesses @ `20,000/-.

(b) Prosecution shall secure these

witnesses expeditiously and
6

tender them for cross-

examination.

(c) In the event of any of witnesses

are out of Bengaluru, petitioners

would also be required to pay the

transportation charges of said

witnesses, who would be

attending the case before trial

Court at Bengaluru and learned

trial Judge would be at liberty to

determine such costs including

the costs of airfare, if any.

(d) Petitioners shall cross-examine

the said witnesses on the same

day as and when they appear

before Court without seeking for

any further adjournment.

(e) Payment/deposit of costs shall be

condition precedent for

proceeding with the cross-

examination of P.W.3 to P.W.7.
7

In view of petition having been allowed,

I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for

consideration. Accordingly, it is hereby rejected.

SD/-

JUDGE

DR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh