Application To Recall Of Witness U/S 311 CrPC Can't Be Allowed If Filed Only To Drag Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973: Section 311—-Permission To recall witness—Petitioner challenged order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking to recall witness for cross examination after six years of recording evidence—Held—It is trite that an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., would in the normal circumstance be permitted except in cases where such applications are filed only to drag the proceedings. The case forms a classic illustration of one such action being initiated only to drag the proceedings, as the petitioner has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., after six years of the examination getting over—(Para 6). Petition dismissed.

The Karnataka High Court has held that an application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be allowed in cases where such applications are filed only to drag the proceedings/trial.

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Stanly Kirthiraj challenging the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking to recall the witnesses six years after their evidence was recorded.

The court said, “The case forms a classic illustration of one such action being initiated only to drag the proceedings, as the petitioner has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., after six years of the examination getting over.”

A case was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 408, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 2009. The concerned court framed charges on 03.03.2016 and the recording of evidence of the complainant and other witnesses was completed in 2017.

On 18.12.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking to recall PW.2 for further cross-examination. The trial court rejected it, on the ground that the matter was at an advanced stage and the application was filed after six years of cross-examination getting over, which is a misuse of the law.

The bench on going through the order sheet of the trial court noted that the petitioner had gone on seeking adjournments in a case that began in the year 2009. It noted that the trial was yet to be concluded despite 15 years having passed.

Then it held “The finding of the Court cannot be found fault with but the action of the petitioner undoubtedly needs to be found fault with. It is trite that an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., would in the normal circumstance be permitted except in cases where such applications are filed only to drag the proceedings.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Elangovan K for Petitioner.

HCGP Harish Ganapathi for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

Case Title: Stanly Kirthiraj AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6269 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order