IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 314 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

JITHESH GOWDA S/O. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT SORANJA HOUSE, PERALU POST, MANDEKOLU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K DISTRICT - 574 239.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY BY D.K. WOMEN POLICE STATION Location: Hi gh SULIA, D.K., REPRESENTED BY SPP, Court of Karnataka HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. SMT. JYOSTHA KARKADA, W/O KIRAN JATHANNA, AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT GOVERNAMNT HOSPITAL QUARTERS, INFRONT OF MASTHIKATTE SCHOOL, MARPADY VILLAGE, MOODABIDRE TALUK, MANGALURU CITY, D.K - 575 021.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADESSHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.05.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.5039/2021, PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE, SITTING AT PUTTUR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(i) OF IPC, U/S 4 AND

12 OF POCSO ACT, REGISTERED BY SULIA P.S.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Special Case No.5039 of 2021, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking further cross-examination of the victim/PW1 is rejected on the score that the victim cannot be repeatedly called for further cross-examination.

2. Heard Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.67 of 2021 for offences punishable under Section 376(2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('the POCSO Act' for short). The issue in the lis does not relate to the merit of the matter. The victim was cross-examined long ago. The petitioner now files an application seeking further cross-examination of the victim on the score that if he is convicted, it could be a sentence beyond 10 years and therefore, the petitioner should be given all opportunity to cross-examine the victim and unearth the truth in the matter.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds that are urged in the petition that the victim as on today is 19 years old, may be at the time of the incident was 15 years old. The recording of the further cross-examination of the victim is imperative in the case at hand, as there are several discrepancies in the earlier cross-examination that had to be projected and the learned counsel further submits that the application was reasoned as to why the victim had to be called for further cross-examination.

5. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand would seek to place reliance upon Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act to contend that the victim cannot be called repeatedly for cross-examination and would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The order that brings the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is as follows:

":REASONS

7. In this case, the I.o. has charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. And Section 4 and 12 of POCSO Act. The prosecution has already examine the victim girl as PW.1, she was fully cross-examined by defense counsel in the month of January 2022.

8. The evidence on record shows that PW.1 has adduced evidence against accused about alleged offences. it is noticed that the defense counsel has elaborately cross-exa