Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.3261/2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 27, 2015
Date of Order: August 27, 2015
CRL.M.C. 3261/2015
ASHIS JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay Chandra Jha and Mr. Kaushal Chandra Jha, Advocates
ASHIS JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay Chandra Jha and Mr. Kaushal Chandra Jha, Advocates
VERSUS
GOVT OF NT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vijay Kaushik Mr. Sonal Sinha, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vijay Kaushik Mr. Sonal Sinha, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.612/2004 under Section
406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station R.K.Puram, Delhi and is aggrieved by rejection of his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of respondent No.2-complainant (PW-1). Petitioner’s application has been dismissed on the ground that despite several opportunities, petitioner has not come forward to cross examine respondent No.2-complainant in a decade old case and has not deposited the cost imposed.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record certified copies of the order-sheets of trial court to show that subsequent to passing of the impugned order, cost of `5,000/- has been deposited on
2015:DHC:7027 Crl.M.C.3261/2015 Page 2 13th November, 2014 and respondent No.2-complainant has not been cross examined at all and if impugned order is not set aside it would cause great prejudice to petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant supports the impugned order and submits that petitioner is just prolonging the proceedings in this case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and material on record, I find that respondent No.2-complainant has not been cross examined at all. Rejection of petitioner’s application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay in trial by itself is not sufficient as it is to be seen whether cross examination of respondent-complainant is essential for just decision of this case. On account of delay caused, respondent- complainant can be always compensated by payment of cost. In the considered opinion of this Court, cross examination of respondent- complainant is essential for a fair trial.
Consequentially, impugned orders dated 26th February, 2015 and
20th May, 2015 are hereby quashed and petitioner’s application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed subject to cost of `25,000/- to be paid to respondent-complainant at the time she appears for her cross examination. It is made clear that one effective opportunity be granted to petitioner to properly cross examine respondent-complainant.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2015 vn 2015:DHC:7027
Petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.612/2004 under Section
406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station R.K.Puram, Delhi and is aggrieved by rejection of his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of respondent No.2-complainant (PW-1). Petitioner’s application has been dismissed on the ground that despite several opportunities, petitioner has not come forward to cross examine respondent No.2-complainant in a decade old case and has not deposited the cost imposed.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record certified copies of the order-sheets of trial court to show that subsequent to passing of the impugned order, cost of `5,000/- has been deposited on
2015:DHC:7027 Crl.M.C.3261/2015 Page 2 13th November, 2014 and respondent No.2-complainant has not been cross examined at all and if impugned order is not set aside it would cause great prejudice to petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant supports the impugned order and submits that petitioner is just prolonging the proceedings in this case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and material on record, I find that respondent No.2-complainant has not been cross examined at all. Rejection of petitioner’s application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay in trial by itself is not sufficient as it is to be seen whether cross examination of respondent-complainant is essential for just decision of this case. On account of delay caused, respondent- complainant can be always compensated by payment of cost. In the considered opinion of this Court, cross examination of respondent- complainant is essential for a fair trial.
Consequentially, impugned orders dated 26th February, 2015 and
20th May, 2015 are hereby quashed and petitioner’s application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed subject to cost of `25,000/- to be paid to respondent-complainant at the time she appears for her cross examination. It is made clear that one effective opportunity be granted to petitioner to properly cross examine respondent-complainant.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2015 vn 2015:DHC:7027
JUDGMENT