- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12984 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMKRISHNA K E S/O D. ESHWARAPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT SUPRIYA HOUSE, PERAJE VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI, KODAGU. 2. SMT. SUPRITHA W/O SUMANTH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MUGERU HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLYA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SULLYA P S REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. SURESH S/O D MUDARA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KUTHIMUNDA MANE, DELAMPADI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 KASARGOD TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 671 543. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF PRAYING TO CALL FOR RCORDS, ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.07.2025 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 231(2) OF CR.P.C FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN SPECIAL CASE NO.5037/2019 PRODUCED AS DOCUMENTS NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are being prosecuted before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. The case of prosecution is that, on 22.09.2019 at about 4:30 p.m., while the complainant/respondent No.2 was engaged in his work at the estate situated at Kanakamajalu village, belonging to one Gopala Rao, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 father-in-law of accused No.2, and accused No.1 being father of accused No.2, both the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly came to the farmhouse where Gopala Rao was present. It is alleged that, on hearing commotion from the house, respondent No.2 rushed from the field towards the farmhouse and found the accused quarrelling and abusing Gopala Rao in filthy language. It is further alleged that when the complainant attempted to pacify them, both the accused persons abused him in filthy language referring to his caste, in the presence of co-workers, and also threatened with dire consequences. 3. An application under Section 231 of Cr.P.C read with Section 365(3) of BNSS, 2023 was filed by the defence seeking permission of the court to defer the cross- examination of P.W.1 and to permit them to cross- examine him after the chief-examination of C.W.2 to C.W.9. The said application was dismissed by the trial court, which order is assailed in this petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2019)13 SCC 297, in the case of State of Kerala v. Rasheed, to contend that if prejudice is likely to be caused to the party seeking deferral, in such cases the court can allow the application and permit the defence to cross-examine the witnesses after completion of their chief-examination. 5. The learned HCGP has contended that the trial Court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly rejected the application. He further contented that the witnesses cannot be summoned to the court over and again for the purpose of examination and cross-examination. He has therefore sought to dismiss the petition. 6. In the case on hand, the examination-in-chief of C.W.1/PW1 is already completed. The trial court has rejected the application seeking deferral of the cross- examination of P.W.1 till the examination-in-chief of C.W.2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 to C.W.9 are completed. It is submitted that C.W.3 is no more. C.W.1 is the victim/complainant in this case. C.W.2 is none other than the father-in-law of accused No.2. C.W.4 to C.W.7 are the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident who are all said to be known to C.W.1 and C.W.2. Further, C.W.1 is admittedly working under C.W.2. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that if the cross-examination of C.W.1 is conducted first, there will be serious risk and prejudice to the defence and other witnesses are likely to be tutored and influenced by C.W.1 and C.W.2. 8. In the decision noted supra, the Apex Court at para 23 has held as under: "While deciding an application under Section 231(2) Cr.PC, a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The following factors must be kept in consideration: (i) possibility of undue influence on witness(es); (ii) possibility of threats to witness(es); - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 (iii) possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; (iv) possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in-chief has been completed; (v) occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non- availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) Cr.PC. These facts are illustrative for guiding the exercise of discretion by a Judge under Section 231(2) of CrPC." 9. Under Section 231 Cr.P.C, court can, in its discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses are examined or recall any witness for further cross- examination. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, defence will cross examine C.W.1 to C.W.9, once their chief examination is conducted, without delaying the proceedings. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 11. The Apex Court has held in the above decision that there cannot be a straight jacket formula providing for grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) Cr.PC can be exercised. Exercise of discretion has to take place on a case to case basis. 12. Considering the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that prejudice would be caused to the defence, if the application is not allowed. There is possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent defence's strategy. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 09.07.2025 in Special Case No.5037/2019, passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, is set aside; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42273 CRL.P No. 12984 of 2025 (iii) The application filed by the petitioners under Section 231 Cr.P.C read with Section 265(3) of BNSS, 2023 is allowed; (iv) The trial court shall defer the cross-examination of C.W.1 to C.W.9 and permit the petitioners/defence to cross-examine them after their chief-examination is completed. (v) The petitioners shall not take unnecessary time and delay the proceedings and shall cross-examine the witnesses on the day of their appearance. Pending IA is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK