Mast Ram Thakur vs Lalit Kumar Sharma And Another

Anoop Chitkara, J

A cheque amounting to Rs. 4,35,000/- which was bounced in July, 2008 leading to filing of the complaint in August, 2008, is still hanging

adjudication.

History tells that only those Nations rise, which protect the wealth of its citizens.

Complainant, Lalit Kumar Sharma, had filed the complaint captioned above against the petitioner, Mast Ram Thakur and another, for recovery of

Rs. 4,35,000/-, when the cheque was not honoured by the bank for want of funds in the account.

In 2019, the accused had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC to re-examine the complainant. Apart from other relevant grounds, ground

No.4 was taken, which is extracted as under:-

“That from the perusal of entire case file during aforesaid revision petition, present counsel R.K. Sharma found that material particulars of

evidence have been left to be brought on record at the proper time in this case and also left to put in cross examination of complainant/respondent

regarding the receipt Ex. DW2/A. However, the receipt Ext. DW2/A has got been proved by adducing Dws by the accused/applicant but the said

proof is just a surprise to the other party i.e. complainant/respondent as objected b him through note.â€​

Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi vide order dated 19.6.2019 dismissed the said application.

One of the reason taken in the application (u/s 311 Cr.PC) was regarding change of the counsel.

Challenging the said dismissal, accused filed criminal revision petition before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District

Mandi, H.P.

Vide judgment dated 17.9.2020, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar dismissed the petition on the ground that impugned order dated

19.6.2019 was interlocutory and as such no revision would lie, thus the revision was not maintainable.

Challenging the said dismissal, accused has come up before this Court by filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read

with Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

Mr. Rajinder Kishore Sharma, learned Senior Counsel argued that the rights of the accused in a criminal case are of paramount consideration and

(in an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC), he would entitle at least one opportunity.

On the other hand, Ms. Suchitra Guleria and Ms. Ritika Thakur, learned counsel representing the respective respondents submitted that due to the

clever tactics of the accused, a huge amount of Rs. 4,35,000/- as on 2008 is still pending and inflation has already terribly reduced the value of the

money. She contended that such type of people like the petitioner are responsible to reduce the reputation of judiciary and faith in the public at large.

The ground taken by the accused in paragraph- 4 of the application appears to be relevant/genuine. The petitioner has annexed Annexure P-3,

which is a receipt on the Letterhead of Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Government Contractor (General Order Supplier), District Mandi. As such the

contention raised in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the petition that re-examination of the complainant Lalit Kumar Sharma is important because such receipt

was tendered in evidence by DW-2, Kuldeep Singh. Learned counsel further argued that this receipt was also exhibited as Ext. DW2/A at the time of

examination of the said witness.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Under either of the

provisions, this Court can interfere in this kind of matters. Thus without going into the legality and maintainability of an interlocutory order, which also

appears to be doubtful, there is no point for academic discussion and the same is irrelevant. Without discussing the matter in detail, this Court deems it

proper that one opportunity should be afforded to cross examine the complainant.

Given above, this petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 19.6.2019 and 17.9.2020 are set aside. The parties through their learned counsel

are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 19.7.2021, on which date accused shall cross examine the complainant in terms of paragraph-4

of the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.PC. However, it is clarified that for any reason the complainant could not appear then in that

eventuality a very short adjournment shall be granted and under any circumstances no further adjournment shall be granted to the accused.

Since this complaint pertains to the year 2008, therefore, this Court request learned trial court to take up this matter on day-to-day basis and

conclude the trial positively before this Independence Day.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this judgment and the parties can download the same from the official web page of this Court.

Copy Dasti.