CC.No.

83/2016

07.01.2022

Order on application filed by the accused for

closing the evidence of CW1 and proceeding for

trial with remaining witnesses.

1. That, the accused in his said application has

contended that the complainant filed the complaint in

Shaktinagar Police Station Raichur on 14.12.2015 by

making false allegation against him and in pursuance of

said complaint the said police have registered the case

against him in FIR No.130/2015 and later on, have

submitted final report against him for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498-A, 323, 504 of

IPC and under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

That the said accused has further contended that this

Court had framed the charge against him and issued

notice to CW1 and the CW1 never attended to this Court

even after witness summons has been served on her and

the complainant is not in habit of attending the Court on

schedule date of hearing only after issuing Non-bailable

warrant and bailable warrant and this Court had issued

 CC.No.83/2016

the non bailable warrant and bailable warrant against her

on 03.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 respectively.

2. That, the accused has further contended that

the complainant also filed the maintenance petition under

Section 12 of PWDV Act and under Section 125 of Cr.P.C

for seeking maintenance and other reliefs from him and

as per the Order of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.13/2015, he

is regularly paying interim maintenance amount of

Rs.6,000/- per month and also regularly paying Rs.5,500/-

per month towards her house rent and further he has also

regularly paying the maintenance of Rs.12,500/- per

month to her as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, Kalaburgi in proceeding

initiated by her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C

3. That, the accused has further contended that

on several times from 15.10.2018 to 03.01.2020 the

complainant has voluntarily sought the time to render her

evidence and this shows the attitude of the complainant

for waisting the precious time of the Court.

 CC.No.83/2016

4. That, the accused has further contended that

this Court has continuously adjourned the case from

15.10.2018 to 27,09.2021 for the evidence of complainant

and the complainant with an intention to harass him has

not attended the Court on schedule dates.

5. That, the accused has further contended that,

the complainant is highly educated woman having

completed B.E(IS) and working as Software Analyst at

MeTA-I technology Bangalore. That, such being highly

educated women, she knows the consequences of

intentional disobedience with legal proceedings and if she

is allowed for seeking adjournments often and often it

would become wastage of valuable time of this Court.

6. That, the prosecution filed its objections to

said application and denied all contentions raised by the

accused and prayed for rejecting the said application.

7. That, I have heard the arguments and

perused the materials placed on record. That, the

following points arise for My consideration and

determination:-
 CC.No.83/2016

1. Whether the accused has made out the grounds to

allow his said application as prayed for?

2. What order?

8. That, My answer to the aforesaid point is as under:-

Point No.1:- IN THE NEGATIVE

Point No.2:-As per the final order for the following:-

REASONS

9. Point No-1:- It is to be noted here that, the accused

has claimed for closing the evidence of CW1 and

continuing the proceeding with the CWs.2 to 7. It is to be

noted here that, the accused has filed written arguments

and submitted the following decision:-

Ishwarlal Mali Rathod

vs

Gopal and Others

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.

14117-14118 of 2021

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed that, the

Court shall be very slow in

 CC.No.83/2016

granting adjournments and as

observed herein above they shall

not grant repeated adjournments

in routine manner. Time has now

come to change the work culture

and get out the adjournment

culture so that confidence and

trust put by the litigants in the

Justice delivery system is not

shaken and Rule of Law is

maintained.

10. It is to be noted here that, I have gone through

the entire order sheet. That, from said document it

appears that the complainant is absent before this Court

inspite of receiving the summons and on 09.02.2021,

08.03.2021, 13.07.2021, 16.08.2021 the complainant is

well present before the Court and matter was adjourned

on her own prayer. It is to be noted here that, it is an

admitted fact that the matter is pending before this Court

since 2016. It is to be noted here that, the charges

 CC.No.83/2016

levelled against the accused are for the offences

punishable under sections 143, 147, 498-A, 323 and 504

of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. It is to be noted here that, the complainant CW1 has

set down the law in motion and it is her duty to give the

evidence before this Court. It is to be noted here that,

though, the CW1 has taken so much time to give her

evidence but, it does not mean that she is dropped out

from giving her evidence. It is to be noted here that, if the

CW1 is dropped no purpose will be served. Hence,

without much discussion point No.1 is answered in the

NEGATIVE.

11. Point No.2:- That, as discussed on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

That, the application filed by the accused for

giving up the evidence of CW1 is rejected.

Re-issue summons to CW1 for appearing

before this Court for giving her further evidence returnable

by 14.01.2022.
 CC.No.83/2016

That, CW1 is further directed to give evidence

without seeking any further adjournments.

For evidence of CW1. Re-issue SS to CW1

returnable by 14.01.2022.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript by him, corrected

by me and then pronounced in the open court on this t he
7th day of January 2022).

(Smt. Hema Pastapur)

Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM
Raichur.