Hanamantappa, Sb Basavantappa Havaldar v. Devanand, Sb Venkatesh Kelagade & Ors.

Judgment

1. Devanand, Sb Venkatesh Kelagade, Age: Major. 0cc: Lecturer, J. G. College, Hubli. Rio Quarters No.11, Behind J.G. College, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad.

The State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. (By Sri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, GP for R-2) ... Respondents This Criminal Petition is tiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set-aside the order 22.11 .2010 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, in S.C.No.27/2009 and thereby recalling the PW. I petitioner for further cross-examinatin. This petition coming on for Admission this day, Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner is said to be a resident of Alur village of Muddebihal taluk, and he is working as Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation and is a resident of Muddebihal. He has three brothers and two sisters. One of his sisters, Anjana, was given in marriage to respondent No.1 who is 0 3 working as a lecturer at a College in Hubli, where her marital home is. It is the allegation that, before marriage respondent No.1 had demanded dowry in the form of gold, money and other household goods. Accordingly, he was furnished with gold and other articles. Inspite of it, immediately after two months after his marriage, respondent No.1 started harassing the sister of the petitioner herein, to bring more money and dowry and the petitioner was, in fact, constrained to satisfy such additional demands made, but, the ill-treatment of the sister of the petitioner, according to the complainant, had continued. In the month of November 2008, respondent No.1 is said to have called the petitioner on phone and had threatened, that his sister would meet with her fate if his demands were not satisfied. On the same day, the petitioner is said to have been informed that his sister had died an unnatural death. It is on that basis, that • the petitioner had.alleged.that. his sister waE driven to4eath-by the 1 respondent and therefore, had initiated the proceedings 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498k 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A case registered as S.C.No.27/2009 before the learned I Addi. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, bad gone to trial.

3. It transpired that during the evidence, at the trial, the petitioner was summoned and his evidence was recorded. The cross-examination was deferred at the request of the accused, so also the cross-examination of other witness was also deferred. It was only after a gap of more than five months, that the cross-examination of the petitioner had taken place on

26.6.2010. The petitioner was cross-examined at length on all aspects of the matter and no stone was left unturned in so far as the extent of cross-examination was concerned.

4. However, on 19-i 1-2010, an application was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on bzlbtitht. accused, .contóndiñjthat th&Iaié accuse4-would .. wish to further cross-examine the petitioner herein, as regards S 5 the expenses towards marriage pandal of the petitioner’s sister and utensils purchased from the shop. This was stoutly objected to by the prosecution on the footings that there was little to be cross-examined and there was no indication in the application over the aspect, on which further cross-examination is sought to be made of any material use in seeking to negate the prosecution case. Further, the Court having proceeded to an order without assigning any reasons without considering the objection raised and having permitted to recall the petitioner for further cross-examination, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit, that the impugned order is not a speaking order and it is based on the circumstance, where there is a long gap between examination-in-chief notwithstanding the complete cross-examination of the said cross-examination witness, it is only with a view to harass the petitioner that the 6 I I P 6 accused has, out of spite, sought for such a request in order to cause hardship to the petitioner, who is now required to travel all the way from N4uddebihal to Dharwar, to attend the trial on the aspect of further cross-examination, which has been readily accepted by the Court below without assigning any reasons. This has resulted in grave prejudice to the prosecution case and is only to harass the petitioner that this measure has been taken and therefore, he seeks quashing of the order directing the petitioner to be present for further cross-examination.

6. Since the trial Court is in a vantage position to supervise the conduct of the trial, and since it is within the discretion of the Court to decide whether the said application could have been allowed and since the Court is also in a position control unnecessary irrelevant examination, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if he presents himself pursuant to the direction of the Court, for further cross-examination. However, the trial Court shall 7 ensure that the petitioner is not harassed by the accused subjecting him to irrelevant and unnecessary cross-examination, since it is the case of the petitioner that he has been cross- examined in extenso and there is little or nothing left to be elicited by way of cross-examination. Therefore, the trial Court, in any event, would perform its duty in ensuring that the witness is not brow-beaten or harassed in any manner and shall keep this in view at the stage of the cross-examination of the petitioner.

7. Hence, there is no ground for interference. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Sd! JUDGE sub!