Applications U/s 311 CrPC Should Normally Be Permitted Except In Cases Where They Are Filed Only To Drag Proceedings: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court reiterated that an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be permitted except in cases where such applications are filed only to drag the proceedings.
The Court was dealing with a criminal petition preferred against the proceedings registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “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.”
Advocate Elangovan K. appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused while HCGP Harish Ganapathi appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Factual Background -
In 2009, a case was registered against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, and 420 of the IPC. The issue did not concern the merit or the proceeding before the concerned Court. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet for the said offences. The concerned Court, framed charges in 2016.
Six years thereafter, the accused in 2023, filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC, seeking to recall the witness for further cross-examination. The Court rejected it, on the score that the matter was an advance stage and the application being filed after six years of the cross-examination getting over, is misuse of the law. The counsel for the petitioner urged if one opportunity was granted to him to further cross-examine the witnesses, as they were short-cross-examined.
The High Court in the above context of the case said, “A perusal at the order or the order sheet maintained by the Court is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has gone on seeking adjournments in a case that began in the year 2009. The trial is yet to get concluded despite passage of 15 years. Six years ago, PW Nos.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined. An application comes to be filed by the petitioner, when the trial was an advance stage. That comes to be rejected. The petitioner challenges the said rejection before the Court of Session. It comes to be affirmed. The finding of the Court of Session, is necessary to be noticed.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that the finding of the Court cannot be found fault with but the action of the petitioner needs to be found fault with.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the petition and refused to interfere with the impugned order.
Cause Title- Stanly Kirthiraj @ Stanley Kirtiraj v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:29418)