Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tejkaran Meena Son Of Shri Ramphool ... vs Ramavtar Meena Son Of Late Shri Bhonri ... on 16 November, 2021
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6086/2021
Tejkaran Meena Son Of Shri Ramphool Meena, Resident Of
Village Siroli, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Ramavtar Meena Son Of Late Shri Bhonri Lal Meena, Resident Of
Village Nagariyawala, Opp. N.r.i Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Amit Jindal
For Respondent(s) : Mr.F.R.Meena, PP
Mr.Vikram Yadav, for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
16/11/2021
The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner Tejkaran, who happens to be the accused in criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, NI Act Cases No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan Second, Jaipur in Cr. Case no. 740/2016 (Ramavtar Meena Vs. Tejkaran Meena)., for quashing of the order dated 2.9.2021 whereby the prayer for adducing evidence in defence has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer made by him for giving another opportunity of adducing the evidence has wrongly been rejected as the same was in consonance with the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Court in SBCr.MP No.6749/2018. He further contends that subsequent order passed by this court in SBCr.MP No. 489/2019 passed on (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:12:15 PM) (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021] 5.7.2021 would not be an impediment if another opportunity for producing the defence would be given. He further urged that right to give an opportunity to adduce his evidence is akin to fundamental right, therefore, the petition may be allowed and further an opportunity of adducing evidence may be directed.
Per contra, Mr.Vikram Yadav, counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. He contents that several opportunities have been granted to the petitioner but on one or the other pretext, he is trying to prolong the trial of the case. He drew attention of the court towards the observations made by this court in the orders dated 29.10.18, 5.7.2021 as well as order impugned, wherein the facts have been incorporated regarding the conduct of the petitioner in his effort for protraction of trial. Therefore, he submits that the petition may be dismissed with heavy cost.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material as made available by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the order dated 5.7.2021 passed by this court, copy of which has been supplied by the counsel for the complainant during the course of hearing and the order dated 29.10.2018.
After going through the entire material, and the submissions made by counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondent herein launched a criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein for accusation of committing the offence under the penal provisions of NI Act in the year 2016. It is emerging from the facts of the case that on 10.3.2018, statement of accused got recorded. (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:12:15 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021] Thereafter, six adjournments were sought but no witness was examined in defence. On 16.7.2018, last opportunity was granted to lead defence evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. On 6.8.2018, again no defence evidence was available and cost of Rs.1,000/- was imposed. On 28.8.2018, neither the petitioner deposited the cost nor brought any defence evidence, therefore, the defence of the accused was closed vide order dated 19.9.2018.
The said order came to be assailed by the petitioner before this court by way of filing criminal misc. petition No. 6749/2018 wherein showing a lenient view, this court vide its order dated 29.10.2018 had passed direction to the effect that one another opportunity to lead defence be granted to the accused-petitioner; subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/-. It has specifically been ordered by this court that upon depositing 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 examining the defence evidence. On that day, counsel for the petitioner shall conclude the defence evidence, however, if due to paucity of time, defence evidence is not concluded, the trial court shall fix the next date as date for the same and accordingly the criminal misc. petition was disposed of.
Pursuant to the order passed by this court in criminal misc. petition no. 6749/2018, the trial court posted a date 18.1.2019 for recording of defence evidence. On that day, the complainant, his counsel as well as accused petitioner and his counsels were present. However, no evidence was produced.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:12:15 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021] After this, the accused petitioner on a subsequent date, moved an application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.PC which was dismissed and the same was assailed before this court by way of filing the criminal misc. petition no. 489/2019. This court in the afore-mentioned criminal misc. pet. no. 489/2019, vide its order dated 5.7.2021 while taking into consideration the entire facts & circumstances of the case, had dismissed the petition and observed that if a further opportunity of leading defence evidence would be given to the petitioner, it would tantamount to review of its earlier order which would neither be in accordance with law nor would be justifiable.
In my considered opinion, any order, contrary to the view taken by this court vide order dated 5.7.2021 would surely amounts to review/reconsideration of its earlier order without there being any error on the face of record as the same is not permissible under the law. Section 362 of the Cr.P.C clearly restrains any such alteration or review of its earlier order. Apart from this, the complainant launched the prosecution in the year 2016 and since 2018, trial has been kept pending for want of defence evidence and the trial has been protracted only on account of laches of the accused respondent. Though an accused may have a fundamental right to defend his case, but at the same time, the complainant too has a right to get speedy disposal of his case. This court is satisfied that ample opportunity has been granted to the accused-respondent to lead his defence and now giving any further opportunity would be onerous to the rights of (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:12:15 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6086/2021] the complainant, therefore, no further opportunity to lead defence evidence would be justified to be granted.
Therefore, in view of the above, the instant criminal misc. petition, deserves to be dismissed; the impugned order dated 2.9.2021 does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.
The stay application is also disposed of.
( FARJAND ALI),J SANDEEP RAWAT /23/62 (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:12:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)