IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12984 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SRI. RAMKRISHNA K E S/O D. ESHWARAPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT SUPRIYA HOUSE, PERAJE VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI, KODAGU. 2. SMT. SUPRITHA W/O SUMANTH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MUGERU HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLYA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS Digitally signed (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE)

by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of AND:

Karnataka

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SULLYA P S REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. MR. SURESH S/O D MUDARA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KUTHIMUNDA MANE, DELAMPADI VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 671 543.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF PRAYING TO CALL FOR RCORDS, ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.07.2025 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 231(2) OF CR.P.C FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN SPECIAL CASE NO.5037/2019 PRODUCED AS DOCUMENTS NO.1.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are being prosecuted before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC &

ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The case of prosecution is that, on 22.09.2019 at about 4:30 p.m., while the complainant/respondent No.2 was engaged in his work at the estate situated at Kanakamajalu village, belonging to one Gopala Rao, father-in-law of accused No.2, and accused No.1 being father of accused No.2, both the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly came to the farmhouse where Gopala Rao was present. It is alleged that, on hearing commotion from the house, respondent No.2 rushed from the field towards the farmhouse and found the accused quarrelling and abusing Gopala Rao in filthy language. It is further alleged that when the complainant attempted to pacify them, both the accused persons abused him in filthy language referring to his caste, in the presence of co-workers, and also threatened with dire consequences.

3. An application under Section 231 of Cr.P.C read with Section 365(3) of BNSS, 2023 was filed by the defence seeking permission of the court to defer the cross- examination of P.W.1 and to permit them to cross- examine him after the chief-examination of C.W.2 to C.W.9. The said application was dismissed by the trial court, which order is assailed in this petition.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2019)13 SCC 297, in the case of State of Kerala v. Rasheed, to contend that if prejudice is likely to be caused to the party seeking deferral, in such cases the court can allow the application and permit the defence to cross-examine the witnesses after completion of their chief-examination.

5. The learned HCGP has contended that the trial Court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly rejected the application. He further contented that the witnesses cannot be summoned to the court over and again for the purpose of examination and cross-examination. He has therefore sought to dismiss the petition.

6. In the case on hand, the examination-in-chief of C.W.1/PW1 is already completed. The trial court has rejected the application seeking deferral of the cross- examination of P.W.1 till the examination-in-chief of C.W.2 to C.W.9 are completed. It is submitted that C.W.3 is no more. C.W.1 is the victim/complainant in this case. C.W.2 is none other than the father-in-law of accused No.2. C.W.4 to C.W.7 are the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident who are all said to be known to C.W.1 and C.W.2.

Further, C.W.1 is admittedly working unde