The Trial Court must exercise its discretion under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. (or Section 254(3) of the BNSS) to allow the deferment of cross-examination when witnesses testify on identical facts, if a refusal would cause prejudice to the accused or prematurely expose the defense strategy.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5527 OF 2026

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.03.2026 IN SC.NO.5012/2024 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K, MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307, 447, 326A, 201 OF IPC OF KADABA POLICE STATION ON AN APPLICATION FILED U/S 231(2) OF Cr.PC R/W SEC. 254(3) OF BNSS, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

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 seeking the following prayer:

"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated:17.03.2026 in SC No.5012/2024, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K Mangaluru sitting at Puttur for the offence punishable 307, 447, 326(A), 201 of Indian Penal Code of Kadaba Police Station on an application filed under section 231(2) of Cr.PC R/w section 254(3) of BNSS, which is produced at Annexure-A; in the interest of justice."

2. Heard Sri.Lethif B, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.31/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 447, 326A, 201 of the IPC, on allegation of throwing acid by the petitioner upon the victim girl. The police have filed charge sheet post-investigation which comes to be registered as C.C.No.273/2024. The case was then committed to the Court of Session and is now pending as S.C.No.5012/2024. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter.

4. The petitioner files an application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., for seeking deferment of cross-examination on account of all prosecution witnesses deposing on the same incident. The prosecution files its objections, the concerned Court dismissed the application in terms of the order impugned. Therefore, the petitioner is before the Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned Counsel Sri.Lethif B, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the issue in the lis stands completely answered by what this Court has held in Crl.P.No.16658/2025.

6. Learned Addl. SPP Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, appearing for respondent No.1 would not dispute the position of law as is laid down. The issue thus boils down to a narrow compass as to whether the facts would reveal that all the prosecution witnesses are all eye witnesses to the incident. This is an undisputed fact. In the light of this fact being undisputed, the judgment rendered by this Court would become applicable on all its fours to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, as well. This Court in Crl.P.No.16658/2025 disposed on 03.02.2026 has held as follows:

"The concerned Court holds no sufficient ground is shown to defer the cross-examination of PW-1 and closes the cross-examination. It is the aforesaid order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. It therefore becomes necessary to consider whether the petitioners were entitled to deferment of cross-examination on the circumstances narrated in the application.

8. To consider the said issue, it is germane to notice Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., invoking which the application is filed. It reads as follows:

231. Evidence for prosecution:-

(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.

(E