- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24388 CRL.RP No. 182 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 182 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI URALINGAPPA G S/O LT GURUBASAVEGOWDA AGED 70 YEARS R/O LAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION ARASIKERE-573 103 HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S CHANDRASHEKAR BABU, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: SRI AGGUNDA MAHESHWARAPPA S/O SHIVANNA AGED 40 YEARS R/O AGGUNDA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 06.08.2022 IN C.C.NO.151/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO EXAMINE THE WITNESSES CITED IN THE WITNESS LIST IN THE COMPLAINT. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24388 CRL.RP No. 182 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in C.C.No.151/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere (for brevity, 'learned Magistrate'), whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner/complainant in the proceedings. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the petitioner/complainant has filed a private complaint against the respondent/accused before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 355, 504 and 109 of IPC. Learned Magistrate, took cognizance offences. 3. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed list of witnesses on behalf of the complainant, wherein it is stated that the complainant intends to examine the counsel who is appearing for the respondent/accused along with other witnesses. The said list of witnesses was rejected by the learned Magistrate. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24388 CRL.RP No. 182 of 2023 4. Despite granting sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he remained absent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent is present and submitted that there is no such provision under Cr.P.C. for the complainant to examine the witnesses for the first time by providing a list of witnesses after cognizance is taken and charges are framed. Nevertheless, one of the witnesses sought to examine by the petitioner in the list of the witnesses filed by him is none other than the counsel for the accused. As such, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 6. I have carefully perused the impugned order which reveals that after filing of private complaint, the learned Magistrate has took cognizance of offences and thereafter, charges are framed. Subsequently, the complainant filed a list of witnesses to examine the counsel appearing for the accused as one of the witnesses. Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 protects professional communication between the advocate and their client, ensuring confidentiality. It prohibits advocate from disclosing client communication made during their employment, unless the client consents or the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24388 CRL.RP No. 182 of 2023 communication furthers an illegal purpose/commits fraud. In the instant case, no such consents or communication by the client to accused's counsel. In such circumstances, the prayer of the complainant to examine the accused's counsel on behalf of complainant is not tenable. Nevertheless, there is no provision under Cr.P.C. for the complainant to examine for the first time by providing list after taking cognizance and framing of charges. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21