Anita Malhotra v. Karina Fincap Ltd

1. Cost as imposed on the respondent vide order dated 28"^ November, 2016 has been paid.

2. Considering the fact that the trials are at the fag end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press the present petitions for quashing of the complaint cases and the order summoning them but presses the applications being Crl.M.As. 18456/2016, 18452/2016, 18450/2016, 18448/2016, 18446/2016 & 18444/2016 seeking setting aside of the order th dated 17 November, 0216 wherein without awaiting orders of this Court, the learned Trial Court closed the defence evidence of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was asked to file the order sheets of the learned Triql Court. From the order sheets it is apparent that the petitioner was to lead defence evidence from 18^^ December, 2014 when DW-1 was present, examined and cross-examined partly. On the next date i.e. 17^*^ January, 2015 DW-1 was cross-examined anddischarged and summons weredirected to be issued to DW-5. On lO^'' February, 2015 summons were unserved to DW-5. Further DW-2 and 3 did not appear nor did the petitioner as the mother of the petitioner was seriously ill who passed away later on 26^^ February, 2015 and for the same reason the petitioner was not present even on 7'^ March, 2015. Though on 7'^ March, 2015 DW-2 bank official was present, he was discharged. On two dates i.e. 20^'' March, 2015 and 22"'' April, 2015 the matter could not be taken as the lawyers were on strike. On 8"^ April, 2015 the matter was adjourned as the main counsel for the petitioner was not there and on 13"^ May, 2015 it was adjourned at the CRL.M.C. 4297/2016 &conn, matters Page 3of[4] request of the complainant. On 30^*^ May, 2015 DW sought exemption as unwell, however the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement dropping DW-3 as a witness. Thereafter time was spend in transfer ofthe complaint to a different jurisdiction and was thereafter fixed for defence evidence for 22"'* December, 2015 on which date DW-2 was again unwell and the matter was listed on 8'*^ April, 2016 when no witness was present. On 12^^ July, 2016 the Court was on leave and thus the matter was listed on 17^ November, 2016 when the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitions for quashing ofthe complaints and the order summoning her have beenfiled before this Court; however the defence evidence was closed.

4. Considering the fact that though not too diligent, however witnesses of the defence had appeared, were examined and cross-examined and the adjournments cannot be attributed totally to the defence, the order dated 17^^ November, 2016 in complaint cases Nos. 659/15, 664/01/15, 663/01/15, 658/01/15, 662/01/15 and 661/01/15 is set aside.

5. The learned Trial Court is directed to grant opportunity to the petitioner to lead its defence evidence.

6. With these directions the petitions and applications are disposed of. Order dasti.