[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Anil Poojari vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14488
CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2842 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ANIL POOJARI
S/O CHANNAPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT BILAGURU,
HEMMAKKI VILLAGE,
BALEHOLE POST,
KALASA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)
by KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KALASA POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
2. BEBI
W/O KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT BALEHOLE ESTATE,
LABOUR LINE HOUSE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14488
CRL.P No. 2842 of 2026
HC-KAR
BALEHOLE, KALASA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALAURU DIST-577101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA., ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2026 PASSED BY THE
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SPL.C (P) NO.6/2025 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED U/S 348 OF BNSS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question
an order of the concerned Court, which rejects the
application of the petitioner filed under Section 311
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.")
seeking recall of PW1 and PW2 - the victim and the
mother respectively, for further cross-examination.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime for offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian
NC: 2026:KHC:14488
HC-KAR
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 ("POCSO Act", for short) and Sections
3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015.
4. The issue in this lis is not with regard to merits of the
matter. PW-1- the victim and PW-2-her mother were
cross-examined at an earlier point in time. The
petitioner then files an application under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW1 and PW2-the victim
and her mother, for further cross-examination. The
said application comes to be rejected. Therefore, the
petitioner files this petition.
5. Learned Addl.SPP would submit that the victim, who
was once cross-examined, is still under the age of 18
years and therefore, the further cross-examination of
the victim should not be permitted.
NC: 2026:KHC:14488
HC-KAR
6. Insofar as the mother is concerned, the learned
Addl.SPP would leave it to the decision of the hands
of this Court.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions of the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the entire material on record.
8. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act reads as follows:
"33. Procedure and powers of Special
Court.--(1) x x x
(5) The Special Court shall ensure that
the child is not called repeatedly to testify
in the court."
9. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act mandates that the
victim should not be repeatedly called for cross-
examination in the proceedings under the POCSO
Act. The only exception through the judicial
interpretation made to this provision is that if the
victim, when an application is filed under Section 311
of Cr.P.C., has crossed the age of 18 years, in a
NC: 2026:KHC:14488
HC-KAR
given case, the victim can be summoned for the
purpose of cross-examination. In the case on hand,
the victim is still under the age of 18 years.
Therefore, there is no question of allowing the
application for further cross-examination insofar as
the victim is concerned.
10. Insofar as the mother of the victim is concerned, the
purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to discover the
truth. If the elucidation of evidence from the hands
of PW-2 would drive the innocence of the accused,
such application should be permitted.
11. In that light, the following:
ORDER
(I) The Criminal Petition is allowed in
part.
(II) The PW-1/victim should not be
permitted for further for cross-
examination, while PW-2/her
mother must be permitted for
further cross-examination.
NC: 2026:KHC:14488
HC-KAR
(III) The application filed by the
petitioner is also allowed in part.
(IV) The concerned Court shall regulate
its procedure and fix a date for
such cross-examination of the
mother - PW2 and oversee that
the permitting of further cross-
examination of PW-2 would not
become a ruse to drag the
proceedings.
(V) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
