Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: September 01, 2022
GANESH BAHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Mehta, Advocate (through VC).
Through: Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Ms.Muskan Dewan, Mr. Nishant Kumar Singh, Ms. Nidhi Malhotra and Mr. Kumar Prakash, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Court of MM-01, North-West District, Rohini Court, Delhi in complaint case bearing NO. 1459/2017 whereby the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent was closed.
2. The respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner. During the course of trial, the respondent examined him as CW-1 and adopted the pre-summoning evidence. Thereafter, the respondent as CW-1 was partly cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 25.10.2019. The petitioner on 08.04.2022, sought short adjournment on the ground that his counsel was not available. However, the trial Court after perusal of the case file, observed that the petitioner was given last opportunity to cross-examine the 2022:DHC:3484 CRL.M.C. 3973/2022 respondent vide order dated 01.03.2021 and after taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and repeated adjournments, the trial Court declined the request of the petitioner for further adjournment and accordingly, the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent was closed.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition to assail the order dated 08.04.2022. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner ought to be given one opportunity to complete the crossexamination of the respondent as CW-1. The counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments, referred various orders passed by the trial Court which are reflecting that the petitioner was not regular in the appearance and was seeking adjournments.
4. However, it the interest of justice and considering of the facts, the petitioner is given only one opportunity to complete the cross-examination of the respondent on the date fixed by the concerned trial Court i.e. 03.09.2022. It is made clear that if the petitioner could not complete the cross-examination due to the omission on his part, in that eventuality, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent.
5. The trial Court is also directed to complete the trial of the complaint case filed by the respondent preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. The present petition alongwith pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2022/N/SD