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
4trial 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
