Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

M/S Intec Capital Limited vs . Bharti Singh on 15 October, 2019

      IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA:
               DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
         SOUTH - EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

Cr Rev No. 656/2019
M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. BHARTI SINGH

M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED
Through Authorised Representative
Ms. Mehvish Khan,
701, Manjusha, 57, Nehru Place,
New Delhi - 110019                              .......... Revisionist

VERSUS

Smt. Bharti Singh
M/s Printing Explore,
R/o: B­150 & 151, New Panchwati,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh                        .......... Respondent

     Date of filing of petition     : 11.10.2019
     Arguments heard on             : 15.10.2019
     Judgment pronounced on         : 15.10.2019

ORDER:

1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 01.10.2019 vide which right of the complainant to cross­examine the respondent/Ms. Bharti Singh was closed.

2. It is submitted in the revision petition that passover was sought by the counsel for the complainant for 10­15 minutes for cross­ Cr Rev No. 656/2019 M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. BHARTI SINGH Page No. 1 of 4 examination of the respondent, but the Court has closed the right of the complainant to cross­examine the respondent/accused. It is further submitted that the witness has been duly cross­examined on the previous day. The respondent Ms. Bharti Singh was examined for the first time on 05.09.2019 and her cross­examination had to be deferred for want of original documents. The matter was to be listed before the Court on 30.09.2019 for cross­examination, but the e­cause list did not reflect it for the said date. On 30.09.2019, original documents had not been brought by the complainant since in the e­cause list matter was listed for 01.10.2019 at 02.00 pm. Ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared on 01.10.2019 at 02.00 pm. He sought passed over for 10 minutes, but the same was declined by the Court by observing that such pass over was not possible and right to cross­examine the respondent was closed.

3. It is submitted that there was no intention to delay or harass the respondent, but only 10 minutes time was sought by the complainant to cross­examine the respondent, which has also been denied. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court factually erred in observing that harassment has been caused to the respondent at the instance of the complainant/revisionist as not even once was the matter adjourned at the instance of the complainant/revisionist. It is submitted that the impugned order may be set­aside and opportunity may be given to the complainant to cross­examine the respondent.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that he does not wish to file formal reply to the revision petition.

Cr Rev No. 656/2019

M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. BHARTI SINGH Page No. 2 of 4

5. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that this revision has been filed by the complainant to delay the proceedings and harassing the respondent. It is submitted that on all dates, counsel for the complainant had been appearing late during the day in the matter and sought time. Again on 05.09.2019, testimony of DW­4 Ms. Bharti Singh was recorded in the post­lunch session and the cross­examination was deferred for want of original documents on the request of the counsel for the complainant. It is, however, argued that it is frivolous case, which has been filed by the complainant in connivance with the husband of the respondent. It is submitted that well reasoned order has been given by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and does not want any interference.

6. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. My observations are as under:

7. The testimony of DW­4 Ms. Bharti Singh/respondent was recorded on 05.09.2019 and her cross­examination was deferred for 30.09.2019, on which date the matter could not be taken up for cross­examination on account of wrong listing in the e­cause list, according to which matter was listed for 01.10.2019 at 02.00 pm. Ld. Counsel for the complainant had appeared and sought 10­15 minutes passover to conclude the cross­examination. It is a settled proposition of law that the right of the parties may not be defeated on technicalities of procedure, but it is in the interest of justice that effective opportunity is given for leading evidence to do full justice. In the present case, it is not shown that complainant was seeking Cr Rev No. 656/2019 M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. BHARTI SINGH Page No. 3 of 4 frivolous adjournment, rather only 10 minutes passover was sought.

8. One last and final opportunity is given to the complainant to cross­ examine the respondent/Ms. Bharti Singh. No further opportunity on any ground, whatsoever, shall be given.

9. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial Court for cross­examination of DW­4 Ms. Bharti Singh on 02.11.2019.

10.In view of above, the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 is set­ aside and the revision petition is allowed.

11.A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for compliance.

12.Revision petition file be consigned to Record Room.




Announced in the open Court                (Neena Bansal Krishna)
on 15.10.2019                              District & Sessions Judge
                                           South East, Saket Courts,
                                           New Delhi




Cr Rev No. 656/2019
M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. BHARTI SINGH             Page No. 4 of 4