Trial Courts can't grant endless indulgence to cross examine witnesses: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: When an accused, despite repeated and sufficient opportunities, chooses not to cross-examine a material witness, the trial court cannot be expected to grant endless indulgence, the Karnataka High Court has said in a recent judgement.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said this while dismissing the petition filed by a retired teacher from Vijayapura.

The petitioner Damalu Shankar Lamani had approached the high court challenging the trial court order rejecting his application filed under CrPC section 311, seeking to cross-examine the complainant.

The complainant Malleshi Rajaput, junior engineer, had visited Shankar Lamani’s house on December 26, 2020, for the purpose of collection of the pending electricity bill.

It is alleged that Shankar Lamani and another person obstructed Malleshi from performing his duty and abused him. A case was registered for offences under IPC sections 353 (assault or criminal force against a public servant), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 504.

The trial commenced in the case and November 17, 2022, the complainant entered the witness box and was fully examined-in-chief by the prosecution on the very day. On June 20, 2025, the trial court rejected Shankar Lamani’s application seeking to cross-examine the complainant noting that he failed to cross-examine the complainant despite repeated opportunities.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that as per the records, the petitioner consistently failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine spanning over a period of nearly four years. On several hearings, the Trial Court had granted time sought for cross-examination by imposing costs, the high court observed.

“This Court is of the considered view that the present case exemplifies a classic instance of abuse of the process of Court. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, involving an act of violence against a public servant.

While the complainant has approached the Court seeking redressal for the alleged violent act, the conduct of the accused demonstrates that, by repeatedly seeking adjournments, he has effectively subjected the complainant to prolonged harassment and inconvenience. The manner in which adjournments have been sought from the year 2022 till as late as December 2025 reflects a deliberate attempt to protract the trial and frustrate the course of justice,” Justice Mahadum said.

The court further said, “Undoubtedly, an accused is entitled to a fair trial, and the right of cross-examination is a valuable right forming part of such a fair trial. However, the right to a fair trial cannot be stretched to such an extent as to permit an accused to indefinitely delay proceedings under the guise of seeking opportunities.

Fairness in criminal proceedings is not a one-sided concept; it extends equally to the victim and to the administration of justice. When an accused, despite repeated and sufficient opportunities, chooses not to cross-examine a material witness, the Court cannot be expected to grant endless indulgence.”