Full Text
MINTU KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajesh Dhankar, Advocate VCTSUS STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
27.O9,20Lr
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4B2Cr.P.C. != against the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by Sh. S. K. Sarvaria, fi learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a case under Section 498, 376,34 IPC was registered against the present petitioner vide FIR NO. 3B/20L0 registered by P. S. Bharat Nagar and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
3. During the course of the recording of the evidence the olo 2011:DHC:13090 t l.t ) j d I prosecution examined the prosecutrix on 25.8.2010. She was cross examined at length by the present petitioner/accused. During the course of the examination of the prosecutrix, denied that she has written the letters marked as D-1 and D-2, which according to the petitioner had been written by the prosecutrix.
4. During the course of the cross examination the petitioner did not ask the prosecutrix to furnish her specimen signatures and handwriting so as to compare it with the documents which have been admitted. After considerable time, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed for re-summoning the prosecutrix for the purpose of further cross examination with the prayer that she may be directed to furnish her handwriting for comparison with the written letters marked as D-1 and D-2. This prayer of the petitioner was disallowed by the learned District Judge-VIII, on the ground that the application has been filed only with a view to harass the prosecutrix. Further, it has been observed that so far as the petitioner is concerned, sufficient opportunity was given to him at the time of cross examination and if he wanted to obtain her handwriting, he could have done so at that stage.
5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has assailed the said order passed by the learned District Judge. The petitioner has also referred to Section 165 of the Evidence Act in this regard., -< d relev {
6. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case an ant provisions of law. At the outset, I am of the view that the learned District Judge was correct in observing that a sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross examining the prosecutrix. Now, after expiry of almost a year to ask for re-examination of the witness is actuated only for harassing the prosecutrix. So far as, Section 165 of the Evidence Act is concerned, this is a Section according to which Court has ample power to ask any question to the witness during the course of his examination of the witnesses and it has nothing to do with the re-summoning or recalling of the witness.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. v.K. sHALr,J SEPTEMBER 27,zOLt b {-: I t {v'