- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17822 CRL.P No. 6059 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6059 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SUJATHA, LATE R. UTTAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7, 2ND CROSS, GUPTA LAYOUT, NEXT VAIHNO PEARL APARTMENT, GUPTA LAYOUT, HALASURU, VTC: ULSOOR, PO: H.A.L II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DESAI RAJENDRA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. D. BABU, S/O LATE T.D. DORAIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 2. SRI. SRUJAN, S/O SRI. D. BABU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.43, C.Q.A.L LAYOUT, 12TH MAIN, SHAKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17822 CRL.P No. 6059 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED X A.C.M.M, MAYO HALL BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.51220/2016 REJECTING THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION UNDER SEC.311 CR.PC PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to summon the doctor who had administered medical treatment to the petitioner for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the assault committed by the accused. 2. The Trial Court, however, rejected the said application on the ground that it was filed merely with the intent to fill up lacunae in the petitioner’s case. It is relevant to note that the accused is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate the allegations of assault and to establish the nature and extent of injuries suffered, the petitioner sought to examine the treating doctor as a material witness. 3. It is a well-settled principle of law that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is intended to be exercised to ensure - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17822 CRL.P No. 6059 of 2025 a fair trial and to arrive at the truth of the matter. The provision enables the Court to summon any person as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to be essential for a just decision of the case. The discretion conferred under Section 311 is to be exercised judiciously and in furtherance of the cause of justice, and not to thwart it on technical or presumptive grounds. 4. In the present case, the testimony of the treating doctor is vital to corroborate the version of the petitioner with respect to the injuries sustained. The rejection of the application by the Trial Court on the mere presumption that it was filed to fill lacunae is not tenable in law, particularly in the absence of any cogent finding that the request was frivolous or vexatious. The evidence sought to be adduced is relevant and material to the issues involved in the case. 5. In such circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application in the interest of a fair and complete adjudication of the matter. Hence the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru in C.C.No.51220/2016 on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17822 CRL.P No. 6059 of 2025 application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is set aside and the application is allowed. iii. The Trial Court of summon and examine Dr.Radha Krishnan, Jayanagar General Hospital, Bengaluru, in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 129 CT: BHK