- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34383 CRL.P No. 12293 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12293 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. GIRISH K S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. NO.285, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, 6TH C MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 060. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. JYOTHI R PATIL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. SRI RUDRAGOWDA M PATIL, R/O. 1675/19, SIDDESHWAR NILAYA, RANGANATHA BADAVANE, VIDYA NAGARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN CC NO.2514/2023 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE OF PW-2 TO 5. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34383 CRL.P No. 12293 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of the learned Magistrate on an application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking recall of PWs.2 to 5 for the purpose of cross- examination. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate, which is now under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the four witnesses examined as PWs.2 to 5 are material witnesses, and their cross-examination is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. He submits that there was some confusion before the Court as to whether the examination-in-chief of the said witnesses could be tendered by way of affidavit or whether they were required to mount the witness box to lead their examination-in-chief. Subsequently, the presiding officer accepted the petitioner’s plea, and their examination-in- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34383 CRL.P No. 12293 of 2025 chief by way of affidavit was taken on record. However, due to the said confusion, the petitioner could not cross- examine the said witnesses at that stage. Hence, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed requesting recall of PWs.2 to 5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate, by adopting a hyper-technical approach, has denied an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine these witnesses, whose testimony goes to the root of the matter, particularly with respect to the financial capacity of the complainant. It is urged that denial of such opportunity would result in grave prejudice to the accused and may ultimately lead to miscarriage of justice. 3. On a closer scrutiny of the order impugned, this Court finds that the contentions urged by the petitioner are wholly misconceived. The records reveal that even on an earlier occasion, when opportunity was granted to cross-examine these witnesses, the petitioner/accused failed to avail the same. This prompted the petitioner to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34383 CRL.P No. 12293 of 2025 file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was considered by the learned Magistrate. Taking a liberal view, the learned Magistrate had allowed the said application, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-, and had once again afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. Despite this indulgence, the petitioner failed to make use of the opportunity. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 24.08.2024, recorded that the cross- examination of PWs.2 to 5, as well as further cross- examination of PW.1, was treated as ‘Nil’. 4. Without assailing the said order dated 24.08.2024, the petitioner has chosen to file yet another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. This Court is of the considered view that unless and until the earlier order, whereby cross-examination was treated as ‘Nil’, is challenged, the petitioner cannot be permitted to maintain a fresh application for recall of the very same witnesses. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34383 CRL.P No. 12293 of 2025 Entertaining such repeated applications would only amount to permitting dilatory tactics and abuse of process of law. 5. In the circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from questioning the order dated 24.08.2024 in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3