1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO. 6972/2017

BETWEEN

S. K. INDUSTRIES,

NO.41, 7^TH CROSS,

KEBBEHALLA,

RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR,

SUNKADAKATTE,

BENGALURU 560 091

REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

SRI. SHIVASHANKAR KADODE,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.)

AND

M/S. MYLAR CHEMICALS,

SHOP NO.1, SITE 140/140,

PUTTENAHALLI PALYA,

OPP: IBP PETROL BUNK,

NEAR SHANESHWARA TEMPLE,

7^TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,

BENGALURU 78

REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

SRI. SIDRAMAPPA BIRADAR,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY C. M., ADV.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO

QUASH

THE

ENTIRE

PROCEEDINGS

IN

C.C.NO.25068/2015 BY THE XVI ACMM, BENGALURU

VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

2

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the

records.

2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the

impugned

order

dated

7.7.2017

passed

in

CC

No.25068/2015 on the file of the XVI Addl. CMM,

Bengaluru,

wherein

the

petitioner

has

filed

an

application u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1 for

further cross examination. The trial Judge considering

the earlier applications filed and being allowed, has

rejected the said application on the ground that the

petitioner is only intended to drag on the proceedings

and had no real intention to cross examine PW-1.

3. The order sheet of the trial Court discloses that

on various occasions, the trial Judge has allowed the

applications filed u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. by imposing costs.

3

Totally, the trial Judge has imposed cost of Rs.5,000/-

on different occasions.

4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he has paid the cost imposed by the trial

Court. But the learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the entire cost has not been paid,

however, some portion of the cost has been paid. As

the matter is still pending before the trial Court in order

to avoid un-necessary multiplicity of proceedings, by

imposing some more cost, it is just and necessary for

this court to allow the petition. The apprehension of the

learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner

is in the habit of filing application after application only

with an intention to drag on the proceedings, which can

be controlled by imposing strict condition on the

petitioner and also by directing the trial Court to dispose

of the matter within certain time frame.

5. With the aforesaid observation, though there is

some laxity and inaction on the part of the petitioner in

not cross examining PW-1, but to provide one more

opportunity to the petitioner, this court is inclined to

4

allow the application filed u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. on cost.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The order dated 7.7.2017

passed in CC No.25068/2015 by the XVI Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner

u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. is allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/-, in

addition to the cost already imposed by the trial Court.

The petitioner has to pay the cost within one week from

the date of receipt of the copy of this order to the

respondent

(Complainant

before

the

trial

Court).

Otherwise, this order would not come to the help of the

petitioner and the order passed by the trial Court would

stand as it is. Further, the trial Court has to fix up the

date at the convenience of both the parties for cross

examination of PW-1 and on the said date, without

asking for time, the petitioner has to cross examine PW-

1, unless the court for any reason grants adjournment.

If he do not cross examine on the date fixed by the

court, again the same consequence would follow and

5

the o