Full Text
Translation output
$-23 & 24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4760/2018
SKYLINK CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Mr. S.K. Tandon and Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advs.
CRL.M.C. 4760/2018
SKYLINK CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Mr. S.K. Tandon and Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
Mr. Madhur Arora and Ms. Himani Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2 along with
R-2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
Mr. Madhur Arora and Ms. Himani Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2 along with
R-2 in person.
AND
CRL.M.C. 4771/2018
SKYLINK CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Mr. S.K. Tandon and Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advs.
SKYLINK CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Mr. S.K. Tandon and Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
Mr. Madhur Arora and Ms. Himani Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2 along with
R-2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
Mr. Madhur Arora and Ms. Himani Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2 along with
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
15.10.2018 Aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2018 whereby petitioners'
2018:DHC:8277 application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed with costs of
?25,000/-, petitioners have filed present petitions under Section 482 ofthe
Code ofCriminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C).
Vide order dated 01.03.2017 application under Section 145(2) ofthe
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act), moved on behalf of the petitioners, was allowed and petitioners (accused) were permitted to cross-examine complainant's witness and matter was adjourned to
06.05.2017. Then on 16.11.2017 CWl was not present in Court.
Application for exemption from personal appearance was moved by the petitioner no. 3and was allowed and case was adjourned to 23.12.2017.
Again application for exemption from personal appearance was moved on behalf ofthe petitioner nos. 2and 3in court on 17.02.2018, on the ground that petitioner no. 2was in ICU. Accordingly, subject to costs of?5,000/- each, cross-examination of CWl was deferred for 17.03.2018. On
17.03.2018 copy of discharge summary of petitioner no. 2was placed on record which indicated that petitioner no. 2was admitted mthe hospital on
15.02.2018 and was discharged on 27.02.2018. Again, apphcation for exemption from personal appearance of petitioner no. 2was filed, which was allowed and matter was adjourned to 18.04.2018 for further cross- examination of CWl. On 18.04.2018 again an application for exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds was moved by the petitioner no.2. However, no medical document was produced. Petitioner no.2 was exempted from personal appearance and matter was adjourned to
02.05.2018, subject to, however, costs of^20,000/-.
On 02.05.2018, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 appeared in court along with their counsel. On the oral request made by the petitioner no.2-Nand Kishore
Malhan cost was reduced to ?18,000/- from ^20,000/-, which has been paid.
On the said date, counsel for the petitioners submitted that she does not wish to further cross-examine CWl. Accordingly, CWl was discharged. On complainant's specific statement complainant's evidence was closed. On
26.05.2018 statement ofpetitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they stated that they wished to lead evidence in their defence, accordingly, they were directed to file list of witnesses. Only thereafter, on
01.09.2018 an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners.
In my view, sufficient opportunities were afforded to the petitioners to cross-examine CWl, inasmuch as, counsel for the petitioners made a categorical statement on 02.05.2018 that petitioners did not intend to further cross-examine CWl. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order.
For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications are disposed ofas infructuous.
OCTOBER 15, 2018 ga A.K. P!
15.10.2018 Aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2018 whereby petitioners'
2018:DHC:8277 application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed with costs of
?25,000/-, petitioners have filed present petitions under Section 482 ofthe
Code ofCriminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C).
Vide order dated 01.03.2017 application under Section 145(2) ofthe
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act), moved on behalf of the petitioners, was allowed and petitioners (accused) were permitted to cross-examine complainant's witness and matter was adjourned to
06.05.2017. Then on 16.11.2017 CWl was not present in Court.
Application for exemption from personal appearance was moved by the petitioner no. 3and was allowed and case was adjourned to 23.12.2017.
Again application for exemption from personal appearance was moved on behalf ofthe petitioner nos. 2and 3in court on 17.02.2018, on the ground that petitioner no. 2was in ICU. Accordingly, subject to costs of?5,000/- each, cross-examination of CWl was deferred for 17.03.2018. On
17.03.2018 copy of discharge summary of petitioner no. 2was placed on record which indicated that petitioner no. 2was admitted mthe hospital on
15.02.2018 and was discharged on 27.02.2018. Again, apphcation for exemption from personal appearance of petitioner no. 2was filed, which was allowed and matter was adjourned to 18.04.2018 for further cross- examination of CWl. On 18.04.2018 again an application for exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds was moved by the petitioner no.2. However, no medical document was produced. Petitioner no.2 was exempted from personal appearance and matter was adjourned to
02.05.2018, subject to, however, costs of^20,000/-.
On 02.05.2018, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 appeared in court along with their counsel. On the oral request made by the petitioner no.2-Nand Kishore
Malhan cost was reduced to ?18,000/- from ^20,000/-, which has been paid.
On the said date, counsel for the petitioners submitted that she does not wish to further cross-examine CWl. Accordingly, CWl was discharged. On complainant's specific statement complainant's evidence was closed. On
26.05.2018 statement ofpetitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they stated that they wished to lead evidence in their defence, accordingly, they were directed to file list of witnesses. Only thereafter, on
01.09.2018 an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners.
In my view, sufficient opportunities were afforded to the petitioners to cross-examine CWl, inasmuch as, counsel for the petitioners made a categorical statement on 02.05.2018 that petitioners did not intend to further cross-examine CWl. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order.
For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications are disposed ofas infructuous.
OCTOBER 15, 2018 ga A.K. P!
JUDGMENT