Chaitra vs Madhuvarasi - Criminal Procedure Case

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 19, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Smt Chaitra vs Mrs Madhuvarasi on 4 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13229
CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4677 OF 2024
                                           C/W
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3716 OF 2024

               IN CRL.P No. 4677/2024

               BETWEEN:

               SMT.CHAITRA
               W/O JAGANNATH
               AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
               R/AT NO.586,
               75TH B CROSS, 1ST FLOOR
               6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
               BENGALURU - 560 010.
                                                               ...PETITIONER

Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI (BY SRI PRAJITH C., ADVOCATE)
J KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. MRS.MADHUVARASI
R/AT:107, 2ND FLOOR
9TH CROSS
SRIGANDHA NAGAR
HEGGANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 091
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13229
CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024

HC-KAR

   THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2024 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.5278/2018
WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE XIII ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.

IN CRL.P NO. 3716/2024

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.CHAITRA W/O JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.586, 75TH 'B' CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRAJITH C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 107, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, SRIGANDHA NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, MARKANDAIAH TEMPLE BENGALURU - 560 091, KARNATAKA. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NEHRU P., ADVOCATE)

 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
                           -3-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:13229
                                    CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024
                                C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024

HC-KAR

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2024 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.311 OF CR.PC IN
PCR.NO.14489/2017 IN C.C.NO.5277/2018 WHICH IS
PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE 13TH A.C.M.M
JUDGE, BENGALURU.

 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                    ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

order dated 28-03-2024 passed rejecting the applications filed

under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to further cross-

examine D.W.1.

1. Heard Sri Prajith C, learned counsel appearing for

petitioner and Sri P Nehru, learned counsel appearing for

respondent in Crl.P.No.3716 of 2024.

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

3.1. The petitioner in both these cases are common. The

complainants differ. The petitioner is the complainant, the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

respondents are the accused. The accused in both these cases

are husband and wife. A transaction between the complainant

and the respondents/accused leads the accused to render

cheques in favour of the complainant/petitioner. The cheques

when presented are dishonoured for the reasons indicated

therein. The dishonour of the cheques has led the complainant

to file a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which

later came to be numbered as C.C.Nos.5277 of 2018 and 5278

of 2018 before the concerned Court.

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

the claim of the petitioner or the defence of the respondents

accused. The issue is with regard to rejection of applications

filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., by the

petitioner/complainant seeking recall of D.W.1 for the cross-
examination. The concerned Court, on the score that the

petitioner had filed similar applications earlier and has not

availed the opportunity of cross-examination of DW1 has

rejected the applications. The rejection of which has driven the

petitioner to this Court and the subject petition.

-5- NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that if one opportunity is rendered, he would conclude

the cross examination on the date fixed by the concerned Court

and would not seek any adjournment thereof.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents

submits that it should be only on imposition of costs and not

allowing the petition simpliciter.

1. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue

in the lis is with regard to the application under Section 311 of

the Cr.P.C., It is the contention of the petitioner that the

cheques issued by the accused are dishonoured, therefore, it is

for the petitioner to prove that the cheques were issued for a

legally enforceable debt, as has been narrated in the complaint.

The petitioner did file two applications of the kind between the

years 2022 to 2024, which come to be allowed by the

concerned Court, but she has failed to cross-examine and later

files applications seeking further cross examination of DW1,

which come to be rejected.

-6- NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. The purport of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. need not

detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The

Apex Court in the case of [VARSHA GARG v. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21123746/) has held as follows:

".... .... ....

1. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the Court "may":

(i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine
any person in attendance, though not summoned as a
witness; and

(ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has
already been examined.
32. This power can be exercised at any stage
of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the
Court "shall" summon and examine or recall and re-
examine any such person "if his evidence appears
to the Court to be essential to the just decision of
the case". Section 311 contains a power upon the
Court in broad terms. The statutory provision must
be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the
statute to aid in the discovery of truth.

1. The first part of the statutory provision which
   uses the expression "may" postulates that the power can
   be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other
   proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the
   recall of a witness by the Court as it uses the expression 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

   "shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any
   such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to
   the just decision of the case". Essentiality of the evidence
   of the person who is to be examined coupled with the
   need for the just decision of the case constitute the
   touchstone which must guide the decision of the Court.
   The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary
   while the latter part is obligatory.

2. A two judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal
   Shamji Soni (supra) while dealing with pari materia
   provisions of Section 540 of the Criminal Code of
   Procedure 1898 observed:

"16. The second part of Section 540 as
pointed out albeit imposes upon the court an
obligation of summoning or recalling and re-
examining any witness and the only condition
prescribed is that the evidence sought to be
obtained must be essential to the just decision of
the case. When any party to the proceedings
points out the desirability of some evidence being
taken, then the court has to exercise its power
under this provision -- either discretionary or
mandatory -- depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case, having in view that
the most paramount principle underlying this
provision is to discover or to obtain proper proof
of relevant facts in order to meet the
requirements of justice."
35. Justice S Ratnavel Pandian, speaking for the
two judge Bench, noted that the power is couched in the
widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either
with regard to the stage at which it can be exercised or
the manner of its exercise. It is only circumscribed by the
principle that the "evidence to be obtained should appear
to the court essential to a just decision of the case by
getting at the truth by all lawful means." In that context
the Court observed:

"18 ...Therefore, it should be borne in
mind that the aid of the section should be -8- NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

invoked only with the object of discovering
relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such
facts for a just decision of the case and it must
be used judicially and not capriciously or
arbitrarily because any improper or capricious
exercise of the power may lead to undesirable
results. Further it is incumbent that due care
should be taken by the court while exercising the
power under this section and it should not be
used for filling up the lacuna left by the
prosecution or by the defence or to the
disadvantage of the accused or to cause serious
prejudice to the defence of the accused or to
give an unfair advantage to the rival side and
further the additional evidence should not be
received as a disguise for a retrial or to change
the nature of the case against either of the
parties."
36. Summing up the position as it obtained from
various decisions of this Court, namely Rameshwar Dayal
v. State of U.P.19, State of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra20, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra21, Masalti v. State of U.P.22, Rajeswar Prosad Misra v. State
of W.B.23 and R.B. Mithani v. State of Maharashtra24, the
Court held:

"27. The principle of law that emerges
from the views expressed by this Court in the
above decisions is that the criminal court has
ample power to summon any person as a witness
or recall and re-examine any such person even if
the evidence on both sides is closed and the
jurisdiction of the court must obviously be
dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play
and good sense appear to be the only safe guides
and that only the requirements of justice
command the examination of any person which
would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case."
37. The power of the court is not constrained by the
closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the
above discussion that the broad powers under Section -9- NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The
 power must be exercised wherever the court finds that
 any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case.
 The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court
 is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice.
 Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to
 discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth
 as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest.

1. Section 91 CrPC empowers inter alia any Court
   to issue summons to a person in whose possession or
   power a document or thing is believed to be, where it
   considers the production of the said document or thing
   necessary or desirable for the purpose of any
   investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC.

2. Section 91 forms part of Chapter VII of CrPC which is titled "Processes to Compel the Production of
   Things". Chapter XVI of the CrPC titled "Commencement
   of Proceedings before Magistrates" includes Section 207 which provides for the supply to the accused of a copy of
   the police report and other documents in any case where
   the proceeding has been instituted on a police report.25
   Both operate in distinct spheres.

3. In the present case, the application of the
   prosecution for the production of the decoding registers is
   relatable to the provisions of Section 91 CrPC. The
   decoding registers are sought to be produced through the
   representatives of the cellular companies in whose
   custody or possession they are found. The decoding
   registers are a relevant piece of evidence to establish the
   co-relationship between the location of the accused and
   the cell phone tower. The reasons which weighed with the
   High Court and the Trial Court in dismissing the
   application are extraneous to the power which is
   conferred under Section 91 on the one hand and Section
   311 on the other. The summons to produce a document
   or other thing under Section 91 can be issued where the
   Court finds that the production of the document or thing

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

 "is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any
 investigation, trial or other proceeding" under the [CrPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/).
 As already noted earlier, the power under [Section 311](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1780550/) to
 summon a witness is conditioned by the requirement that
 the evidence of the person who is sought to be
 summoned appears to the Court to be essential to the
 just decision of the case.

1. PWs 33, 41, 43 and 48, who were the nodal officers of Idea, Airtel, Reliance and Vodafone have already been examined. During the examination of PW- 41, the nodal officer of Airtel, the witness specifically deposed during the course of examination that:

"2. Call detail of mobile number
XXXXXXXXXX, which has 134 pages is Exhibit P-
104, I sent the same detail of the call to the
police. Each page of the same has seal of Bharti
Airtel on the same. Call detail contains date and
time wise detail of call and short message
services made/sent and received by the customer.
Additionally, location of the mobile number is
available in code number along with the time of
the call or message for which call detail is
provided. Location of the call made by the mobile
number in certain time has been shown with
codes, I cannot state name of the location today
by seeing the code. Location can be stated after
decoding the same. We have coding chart for
location, by seeing the same location can be
started. I don't have aforesaid chart along with
me. Aforesaid chart is available in the office."
(emphasis supplied)

1. The relevance of the decoding register clearly emerges from the above statement of PW-41. Hence, the effort of the prosecution to produce the decoding register which is a crucial and vital piece of evidence ought not to have been obstructed. In terms of the provisions of Section 311, the summoning of the witness for the purpose of producing the decoding register was essential for the just decision of the case.

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. Having dealt with the satisfaction of the
   requirements of Section 311, we deal with the objection
   of the respondents that the application should not be
   allowed as it will lead to filling in the lacunae of the
   prosecution's case. However, even the said reason cannot
   be an absolute bar to allowing an application under Section 311.

2. In the decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5)
   v. State of Gujarat26, which was more recently reiterated
   in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India
   Ltd.27, the Court specifically dealt with this objection and
   observed that the resultant filling of loopholes on account
   of allowing an application under Section 311 is merely a
   subsidiary factor and the Court's determination of the
   application should only be based on the test of the
   essentiality of the evidence. It noted that:

"28. The court is not empowered under
the provisions of the Code to compel either the
prosecution or the defence to examine any
particular witness or witnesses on their side. This
must be left to the parties. But in weighing the
evidence, the court can take note of the fact that
the best available evidence has not been given,
and can draw an adverse inference. The court
will often have to depend on intercepted
allegations made by the parties, or on
inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the
evidence. In such cases, the court has to act
under the second part of the section. Sometimes
the examination of witnesses as directed by the
court may result in what is thought to be "filling
of loopholes". That is purely a subsidiary factor
and cannot be taken into account. Whether the
new evidence is essential or not must of course
depend on the facts of each case, and has to be
determined by the Presiding Judge.

(emphasis supplied)

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR
45. The right of the accused to a fair trial is
constitutionally protected under Article 21. However, in Mina Lalita Baruwa (supra), while
reiterating Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court
observed that it is the duty of the criminal court to
allow the prosecution to correct an error in interest
of justice. In Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court
had held that:

"8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be
understood as the inherent weakness or a
latent wedge in the matrix of the
prosecution case. The advantage of it
should normally go to the accused in the
trial of the case, but an oversight in the
management of the prosecution cannot be
treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a
trial can be foreclosed from correcting
errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a
relevant material was not brought on record due
to any inadvertence, the court should be
magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be
rectified. After all, function of the criminal court
is administration of criminal justice and not to
count errors committed by the parties or to find
out and declare who among the parties
performed better."
(emphasis supplied)

1. In the present case, the importance of the
   decoding registers was raised in the examination of PW-

2. Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being
   additional documents required to be able to appreciate
   the existing evidence in form of the call details which are
   already on record but use codes to signify the location of
   accused, a crucial detail, which can be decoded only
   through the decoding registers, the right of the accused
   to a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the
   decoding registers fits into the requirement of being
   relevant material which was not brought on record due to
   inadvertence.

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

1. Finally, we also briefly deal with the objection of the respondents regarding the stage at which the application under Section 311 was filed. The respondents have placed reliance on Swapan Kumar (supra), a two judge Bench decision of this Court, to argue that the application should not be allowed as it has been made at a belated stage. The Court in Swapan Kumar (supra) observed:

"11. It is well settled that the power
conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by
the court only to meet the ends of justice. The
power is to be exercised only for strong and valid
reasons and it should be exercised with great
caution and circumspection. The court has wide
power under this Section to even recall witnesses
for re-examination or further examination,
necessary in the interest of justice, but the same
has to be exercised after taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances of each case. The
power under this provision shall not be exercised
if the court is of the view that the application has
been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

1. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non- examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision."
2. In the present appeal, the argument that the application was filed after the closure of the evidence of the prosecution is manifestly erroneous. As already noted above, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution took place after the application for the production of the decoding register and for summoning of the witness under Section 311 was dismissed. Though the dismissal of the application and the closure of the prosecution evidence both

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

 took place on 13 November 2021, the application by
 the prosecution had been filed on 15 March 2021
 nearly eight months earlier. As a matter of fact,
 another witness for the prosecution, Rajesh Kumar
 Singh, was also released after examination and
 cross-examination on the same day as recorded in
 the order dated 13 November 2021 of the trial
 court.

1. The Court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311 of the CrPC, to summon and examine or recall and re- examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra) while dealing with the prayers for adducing additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC at the appellate stage, along with a prayer for examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC explained the role of the court, in the following terms:

"43. The courts have to take a
participatory role in a trial. They are not expected
to be tape recorders to record whatever is being
stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the
Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act
confer vast and wide powers on presiding
officers of court to elicit all necessary
materials by playing an active role in the
evidence-collecting process. They have to
monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a
manner that something, which is not
relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into
record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in
some ways, it can control the proceedings
effectively so that the ultimate objective i.e.
truth is arrived at. This becomes more
necessary where the court has reasons to
believe that the prosecuting agency or the
prosecutor is not acting in the requisite
manner. The court cannot afford to be
wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant
or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

dereliction of duty on the part of the
prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who
does not act fairly and acts more like a
counsel for the defence is a liability to the
fair judicial system, and courts could not
also play into the hands of such prosecuting
agency showing indifference or adopting an
attitude of total aloofness."
(emphasis supplied)

1. Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) (supra), the Court reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held that:

"27. The object underlying Section 311 of
the Code is that there may not be failure of
justice on account of mistake of either party in
bringing the valuable evidence on record or
leaving ambiguity in the statements of the
witnesses examined from either side. The
determinative factor is whether it is essential to
the just decision of the case. The section is not
limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it
will not be an improper exercise of the powers of
the court to summon a witness under the section
merely because the evidence supports the case of
the prosecution and not that of the accused. The
section is a general section which applies to all
proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code
and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons
to any witness at any stage of such proceedings,
trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant
expression that occurs is "at any stage of any
inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this
Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that
whereas the section confers a very wide power on
the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion
conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the
wider the power the greater is the necessity for
application of judicial mind."
(emphasis supplied)

1. The Court while reiterating the principle enunciated in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (supra) stressed upon

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

 the wide ambit of Section 311 which allows the power to
 be exercised at any stage and held that:

"44. The power of the court under Section
165 of the Evidence Act is in a way
complementary to its power under Section 311 of
the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e. :

(i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the
witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory
portion which compels the court to examine a
witness if his evidence appears to be essential to
the just decision of the court. Though the
discretion given to the court is very wide, the very
width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohanlal v. Union of India this Court has
observed, while considering the scope and
ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of
the words such as, "any court", "at any
stage", or "any enquiry or trial or other
proceedings", "any person" and "any such
person" clearly spells out that the section
has expressed in the widest-possible terms
and do not limit the discretion of the court in
any way. However, as noted above, the very
width requires a corresponding caution that
the discretionary powers should be invoked
as the exigencies of justice require and
exercised judicially with circumspection and
consistently with the provisions of the Code.
The second part of the section does not
allow any discretion but obligates and binds
the court to take necessary steps if the fresh
evidence to be obtained is essential to the
just decision of the case, "essential" to an
active and alert mind and not to one which is
bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the
section is to enable the court to arrive at the
truth irrespective of the fact that the
prosecution or the defence has failed to
produce some evidence which is necessary
for a just and proper disposal of the case.
The power is exercised and the evidence is
examined neither to help the prosecution nor
the defence, if the court feels that there is
necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but
only to subserve the cause of justice and
public interest. It is done with an object of

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

        getting the evidence in aid of a just decision
        and to uphold the truth."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

VARSHA GARG quoted supra, I deem it appropriate to dispose

the petition, granting one opportunity to the petitioner, which

would be her last straw of opportunity of further cross

examination of D.W.1. The concerned Court shall see to it that

no adjournment is taken on the date fixed for such cross-

examination. In the event, the petitioner would not avail of the

opportunity on the date fixed by the concerned Court, the

petitioner would not be entitled to file another application of the

kind for the same purpose.

1. For the aforesaid reasons and with the aforesaid

observations, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed.
- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13229 CRL.P No. 4677 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3716 of 2024 HC-KAR

(ii) Impugned orders dated 28-03-2024 passed by the
XIII ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.Nos.5277 of 2018 and
5278 of 2018 stand quashed.

(iii) The applications filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. stand allowed.

(iv) The concerned Court shall fix a date for further
cross-examination of D.W.1 and on the said date,
the petitioner shall conclude the further cross-
examination of D.W.1.

(v) In the event the conclusion does not happen on the
said date, it would be deemed that the petitioner
has lost the opportunity.

(vi) Ordered accordingly.

Pending application if any, also stand disposed as a
consequence.

SD/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

BKP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25