- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36991 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12439 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. K. PURUSHOTHAM S/O SREERAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPRABHATA COMPLEX, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 2. ASHOK KUMAR MAHARANA S/O SUDHARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT THE HOUSE, SITUATED NEAR RAILWAY TRACK, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRA SEKHAR B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36991 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPD.BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001. 2. ************ D/O SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.3031, 3RD FLOOR, SHOBHA ALTHIYA APARTMENT, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.08.2025 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-IV, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.112/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36991 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of the learned Judge on an application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(C), 354(D), 376, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. During the course of trial, the petitioners/accused filed an application seeking recall of PW.1 – the victim, and certain official witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination. The said application came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge. 3. Despite such rejection, which had attained finality, the petitioners have once again filed a second application seeking to recall PWs.1, 4, 6 and 8. The learned Sessions Judge, by a detailed and reasoned order, has declined to entertain the request, noting that PW.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36991 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2025 (the victim), PW.4 (the prosecutor), and the other witnesses had already been substantially cross-examined. It was further observed that an earlier application to recall PW.1 had been rejected and that order had become final. The trial Court also noticed that a similar application to further cross-examine PW.8 had been partly allowed, pursuant to which PW.8 was subjected to further cross- examination. 4. Upon examining the impugned order, this Court finds that the petitioners have been attempting to prolong the proceedings for the last nine months. The record reveals that after the matter was posted for final arguments, the accused sought as many as seven adjournments without concluding their submissions. These facts clearly demonstrate a deliberate design on the part of the petitioners to protract the trial. The repeated attempt to recall PW.1, who is a minor child and the victim in this case, particularly when the prosecution is for grave offences under the POCSO Act, is wholly unwarranted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36991 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2025 Such repeated applications amount to harassment of the victim and misuse of the process of Court. 5. It is well settled in a catena of decisions of this Court that a child who has suffered sexual assault or harassment cannot be repeatedly summoned to depose afresh, as the legislative intent underlying the POCSO Act is to protect such a child from further trauma of facing prolonged or repeated cross-examination. In the present case, PW.1 was cross-examined as far back as in 2018, and as of today, the year is 2025. When the matter is ripe for final arguments, the petitioners are resorting to repeated and frivolous applications only to ensure that the trial does not conclude. The present case is a clear example of abuse of process, where the petitioners, instead of concluding their arguments, are creating obstacles to prevent the Court below from deciding the matter on merits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36991 CRL.P No. 12439 of 2025 6. This Court therefore finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. If the petitioners are genuinely desirous of putting forth their defence, they shall conclude their final arguments within a period of two weeks from today. In the event the petitioners fail to do so, the learned Sessions Judge shall proceed to decide the matter on merits, uninfluenced by the dilatory tactics of the accused. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75