- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14488 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2842 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ANIL POOJARI S/O CHANNAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT BILAGURU, HEMMAKKI VILLAGE, BALEHOLE POST, KALASA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALASA POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. BEBI W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT BALEHOLE ESTATE, LABOUR LINE HOUSE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14488 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026 BALEHOLE, KALASA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALAURU DIST-577101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA., ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2026 PASSED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SPL.C (P) NO.6/2025 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 348 OF BNSS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court, which rejects the application of the petitioner filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) seeking recall of PW1 and PW2 - the victim and the mother respectively, for further cross-examination. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14488 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026 Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”, for short) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 4. The issue in this lis is not with regard to merits of the matter. PW-1- the victim and PW-2-her mother were cross-examined at an earlier point in time. The petitioner then files an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW1 and PW2–the victim and her mother, for further cross-examination. The said application comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner files this petition. 5. Learned Addl.SPP would submit that the victim, who was once cross-examined, is still under the age of 18 years and therefore, the further cross-examination of the victim should not be permitted. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14488 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026 6. Insofar as the mother is concerned, the learned Addl.SPP would leave it to the decision of the hands of this Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material on record. 8. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act reads as follows: “33. Procedure and powers of Special Court.—(1) x x x (5) The Special Court shall ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the court.” 9. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act mandates that the victim should not be repeatedly called for cross- examination in the proceedings under the POCSO Act. The only exception through the judicial interpretation made to this provision is that if the victim, when an application is filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has crossed the age of 18 years, in a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14488 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026 given case, the victim can be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination. In the case on hand, the victim is still under the age of 18 years. Therefore, there is no question of allowing the application for further cross-examination insofar as the victim is concerned. 10. Insofar as the mother of the victim is concerned, the purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to discover the truth. If the elucidation of evidence from the hands of PW-2 would drive the innocence of the accused, such application should be permitted. 11. In that light, the following: ORDER (I) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part. (II) The PW-1/victim should not be permitted for further for cross- examination, while PW-2/her mother must be permitted for further cross-examination. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14488 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026 (III) The application filed by the petitioner is also allowed in part. (IV) The concerned Court shall regulate its procedure and fix a date for such cross-examination of the mother – PW2 and oversee that the permitting of further cross- examination of PW-2 would not become a ruse to drag the proceedings. (V) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18