High CourtsSingle Bench

Shailesh Kasliwal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 3 December 2018 · Citation: (2018) 12 RAJ CK 0206

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 311, 482
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6886 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 635 words

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the impugned order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed, be set aside. It is further prayed that the order dated 4.9.2018 passed by the revisional court whereby the order dated 17.7.2018 was affirmed be also set aside.

Briefly stated, petitioner had issued two cheques in favour of complainant, total amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000. The said cheques on presentation bounced. Resultantly, complainant-respondent filed a complaint in the court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan. Complainant appeared on various dates, but counsel for the accused-petitioner did not come forward to extend the cross-examination. On 17.7.2018 cross-examination of the complainant was closed.

In the present case, the complainant had furnished his evidence in form of affidavit on 18.9.2017 and the case was fixed for cross-examination on 2.11.2017. On that day, cross examination was not carried and next date was fixed for 11.9.2018. On that day too, cross-examination was not carried and the trial court fixed 24.1.2018 as next date. On the said date, an application was filed and the same was dismissed and the case was adjourned to 6.3.2018 for cross-examination of the complainant. On that day, the petitioner raised a plea of compromise and got adjournment. The next date was fixed as 7.4.2018 and on the said date, Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 4.5.2018. On 4.5.2018, cost of Rs.800/- was imposed and one opportunity was granted.

On 8.6.2018, when the courts were having summer schedule, the complainant appeared at 8:00 AM and at 10:35 AM an application was filed for adjourning the matter. The said application was dismissed and case was fixed for 1.5.2017 for cross-examination of the complainant. The case was called numerous times, the cross-examination was not extended even though the complainant was present. On 3.7.2018 the trial court was left with no other option but to deny the opportunity of cross-examination of complainant by recording cross-examination as NIL.

This is a case where complainant has been harassed. The accused misused the magnanimity of the court. Complainant has been appearing on each and every date, but on one pretext or the other, cross-examination was not carried. The accused simply wanted to delay the proceedings.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the act of the counsel, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is submitted that if examination-in-chief of the complainant is taken into consideration without cross examination, the petitioner will be left defenceless and shall have no remedy.

Considering the order which this court propose to pass, issuance of notice upon the respondents is dispensed with as issuance of notice will further delay the proceedings and the petitioner will succeed in its game plan to delay the proceedings.

Furthermore, the complainant will be fastened with unnecessary cost and litigation expenses. Sen After dispensing with issuance of notice upon the respondents, taking into account the fair play and balance of equities, the petitioner is granted one opportunity to cross complainant-respondent subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. The cost shall be disbursed to the complainant who has been made to suffer. It is ordered that upon deposit of cost by the petitioner within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the trial court, as per its convenience and calendar, shall fix one date for cross-examination of complainant respondent. On that day, counsel for the accused-petitioner shall conclude the cross-examination. However, if due to paucity of time cross-examination of the complainant is not concluded, the trial court shall fix the next day as date for the same.

In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of.