Arjun Kapse vs Raja Suryavanshi

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be allowed this 482 petition and set aside impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Tehsil and District Betul MP. in Complainant Case No.SC NIA No.357/2019 as Annexure A-1.”

It submitted by counsel for applicant that by order dated 30.04.2024, the trial Court has closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the complainant. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on 30.04.2024, applicant was present but his counsel was not present and only on the instructions of his counsel, applicant went to the Court to make a request for grant of short adjournment, which was refused by the trial Court. It is submitted that a last opportunity may be given to applicant to cross-examine the complainant.

Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.

From the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, it is clear that in the first half of the day at 11.00 A.M. neither applicant nor his counsel were present before the Court. Thereafter, the case was passed over and it was taken up at 4.00 P.M. At 4.00 P.M., applicant appeared before the trial Court and expressed that his counsel is unable to cross-examine the complainant, therefore, a short adjournment may be granted. Even during the course of the arguments, it was submitted by counsel for applicant that on the instructions of his counsel, applicant had gone to the Court to make prayer for short adjournment.

Be that whatever it may be.

It is not the case of applicant that in spite of instructions given by applicant, his counsel was not ready to cross-examine the witness. Thus, it is clear that it is the applicant only, who is responsible for non-cross-examination of complainant by his counsel on 30.04.2024. Furthermore, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted in the year 2019. The examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 22.02.2024 and he was partially cross-examined also and thereafter, in spite of two opportunities applicant did not complete the cross-examination. On various occasions it was submitted by applicant/accused that there is a possibility of compromise and accordingly, the matter was also placed before the Lok Adalat and the matter was compromised. Another cheque given by applicant to satisfy the award passed by the Lok Adalat was also returned back by the Bank. Thus, it is clear that whenever the case was listed for cross-examination of the complainant, applicant got the matter adjourn on the pretext of possibility of compromise and when the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat and the matter was also compromised in the Lok Adalat, then once again applicant gave a cheque with insufficient funds in the Bank. As a result the second cheque also stood bounced.

Furthermore, when applicant was present before the Court and if his counsel was not ready to cross-examine the complainant in spite of his instructions, then applicant could have cross-examined the complainant. Even that was not done. Therefore, it is clear that the sole intention of applicant was to somehow get the matter adjourn. No one can be permitted to hijack the proceedings of the Court and once the case is fixed for evidence, then parties must examine or cross-examine the witnesses and they should not adopt any delaying practices. If the right of applicant to cross-examine the complainant has been closed, then applicant himself is responsible for the said heart burning situation. It is not a simple case of adjournment but the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that other party may also suffer undue harassment on account of unnecessary adjournment in the trial.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by closing the right of applicant to cross–examine the complainant.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.