- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3695 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. L.M. SARVAMANGALA, D/O LATE L. MAHADEVAVIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, #118, JANAHAVI CLUSTERS-F2, 6TH MAIN, P AND T COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.L.M.SARVAMANGALA, (PARTY– IN- PERSON)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION, BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 094. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 2. SMT. HARINI W/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI. SUBBRAMANI, S/O B. MUNISWAMY NAIDU, AGED 90 YEARS, 4. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O B. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. A.V. SUBBA RAO, S/O JANAKI RAMANAIDU.A, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.38, 3RD MAIN, AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII A.C.J.M BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.24439/2014 AT ANNEUXRE-A TO THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.24439/2014, whereby the application dated 27.02.2025 filed by respondent No.1-prosecution to adduce further evidence by recalling PW.1 was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard Smt. L.M.Sarvamangala, the petitioner/party-in- person and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid proceedings pending against respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 323, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and the matter was posted for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 prosecution files an application dated 27.02.2025 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking recalling of PW.1, which reads as under: "IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 8TH ACMM, AT BANGALORE. CC.NO:24439/2014 Between: State by Sanjaynagar PS. ...Complainant And: Subramani and Others Accused. APPICATION UNDER SECTON 311 OF CRPC. FILED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS: 1) The Charge Sheet is filed against the accused u/s 354, 341, 323, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC. 2) It is submitted that the above case is posted today i.e., 27-02-2025 for recording of the statement of the accused u/s 313 of CRPC. 3) It is humbly submitted that this application is being filed to recall cw-1/Pw-1 Smt. Sarvamangala to record the further chief examination to explain the delay in lodging the complaint and to mark necessary documents in support of the reasons for the delay. 4) The explanation for delay in lodging the complaint and consequent delay in registering the FIR is to be very - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 much necessary to be deposed by the complainant Pw-1 which is necessary to prove the case of the Prosecution. 5) It is further submitted that some of the documents to be marked and explained have coming to existence after the examination in chief and cross examination of the complainant 6) No inconvenience will be caused to the accused, if Pw-1 is recalled and further chief examined since the accused have a right to cross examine the witness. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to recall Pw-1 and permit the Prosecution to lead the further examination in chief and to mark the document by allowing this application in the ends of Justice. Place: Bangalore Date: 27-02-2025 (G.N.ARUNA) Spl. Public Prosecutor." 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 5-accused, having opposed the above application, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order, holding as under: "Order on recall of PW1 The prosecution filed application for recall of PW1 for further Chief of PW1 for explaining the delay in lodging the complaint. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 The said application is resisted by the accused on the ground that after a period of 10 years, the present application is filed and to harass the accused persons, has filed this application when the case was reached to the stage of argument. Heard. It is seen from Ex. P. 1 the complaint was lodged on 20/05/2014 and Ex. P. 2 was lodged on 04/05/2014 and the complaint was received by the Police Station on the date of complaint itself and such being the case, the question of explaining the delay from the PW1 does not arise and it is the IO has to explain the delay in registering the complaint and the IO has been cross examined on the point of delay and hence no grounds were made out for allowing the application for recall of PW1. With this observation, application dated 27/02/2025 is rejected. Call on for argument by 10/03/2025. VIII ACJM, Bangalore." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid application and impugned order will indicate that apart from the fact that the prosecution does not disclose necessary material particulars and details as to the further evidence sought to be adduced by them, the trial Court has taken into account the long delay in filing the application by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, though several - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 contentions have been urged by all the parties in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de- merits of the rival contentions and in order to enable respondent No.1-prosecution to file a better/detailed application spelling out details/material particulars/documents required for the purpose of adducing further evidence, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and dispose of the application dated 27.02.2025 filed by respondent No.1 by reserving liberty in favour of respondent No.1-proseuction to file a fresh application, which shall be considered by the trial Court after providing an opportunity to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to file their objections and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed; (ii) Impugned order dated 07.03.2025 in C.C.No.24439/2014 is hereby set aside; application dated 27.02.2025 filed by respondent No.1-prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is hereby disposed off; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27093 CRL.P No. 3695 of 2025 (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.1- prosecution to file fresh application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which shall be considered by the trial Court, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to file their objections and to proceed further in accordance with law; (iv) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the fresh/new application, to be filed by respondent No.1-prosecution within a period of two months, from the date on which, the prosecution files such fresh/new application. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22