Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Singh vs Rajeev Chhabda on 10 February, 2023
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 10 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1580 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH SINGH S/O SHRI RAMLAL THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 63
MAHAMAI KA BAAG NEAR SHIV MANDIR BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE )
AND
RAJEEV CHHABDA S/O SHRI N.K. CHHABDA, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 47
AARADHANA NAGAR KOTRA SULTANABAD DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI ANIL KHARE - SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH MS. KRATIKA
INDURAKHYA - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the orders dated 19.7.2017 and 21.11.2022 passed by JMFC, Bhopa in RCT No. 3010154/2016 whereby the right to cross examination of complainant has been closed and also application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has raised various contentions, mainly Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.02.11 13:41:35 IST submitting that the right to cross-examine the complainant is a vital right of the 2 accused and the same cannot be closed on account of mistake of the counsel. It is contended that the proceedings of the trial are itself vitiated in view of provisions of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Rijwan Khan v. State of MP (Writ Petition No.30012 of 2022 decided on 12.01.2023) and Dheeraj Tolani v. Viniraj Modi (M.Cr.C. No.58729 of 2022 decided on 03.01.2023) On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel has contended that despite several opportunity being provided, the petitioner with an ulterior motive did not examine the complainant and kept prolonging the proceedings of the trial Court.
Hence, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of S.K. Pandey v. Kailash Agrawal ( M.Cr.C. No.53434 of 2019 decided on 13.01.2020), Lal Sahab v. The State of MP ( M.Cr.C. No.2191 of 2015 decided on 10.03.2016) and order dated 09.04.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9908 of 2019.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
From the record it appears that the case was fixed for cross-examination of complainant witness on 22.03.2017 however, the accused did not appear. Thereafter the matter continuously fixed on 03.05.2017, 06.06.2017, 29.06.2017 and 19.07.2017 but the petitioner did not cross-examine the complainant witness. Thereafter the trial Court has closed the right of the petitioner to cross- examine.
Signature Not Verified SANThereafter at the request of the accused petitioner, the trial Court fixed Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA the matter on 11.12.2017 for defence evidence but the petitioner absented Date: 2023.02.11 13:41:35 IST 3 himself. Again on 05.01.2018, 22.01.2018, 14.02.2018, 09.03.2018, 22.01.2018, 14.02.2018, 09.03.2018 the matter was listed for defence evidence but the accused absented. Meanwhile the accused also filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The accused with an intention to prolong the proceeding sought time to produce the documents in his defence. Though the case was again fixed for complainant evidence on 14.01.2020 erroneously but the said mistake was rectified vide order dated 23.02.2022 in view of the circular issued by this Court dated 19.02.2020 and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 25.02.2022. Thereafter again the petitioner filed an application for calling an handwriting expert. The said application was rejected on 02.06.2022. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments before the trial Court and the accused petitioner sought adjournment from time to time i.e. on 22.06.2022, 16.08.2022 and 14.11.2022. The petitioner filed application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2022 on the same day. Again the petitioner filed an application under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2023 and the matter is again directed to be listed for final argument on 13.02.2023.
The petitioner in this petition has challenged the aforesaid impugned orders. From perusal of the reasons stated by the trial Court, it is apparent that the accused and his counsel are deliberately adopting dilatory tactics to linger on the case in merciful manner. Several opportunities were given to the petitioner. Record shows that the petitioner willfully prolonged the proceeding by taking advantage of legal provisions on many occasions.
Signature Not Verified SANTrial in a case cannot be allowed to linger on for unlimited period on Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA whims and fancy of any of the party. In the present case, the trial is pending for SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.02.11 13:41:35 IST 4 more than six years because of non-cooperation of the petitioner. The petitioner with ulterior motive kept on lingering the proceedings of the case. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court cannot protect or provide further opportunities to the accused who is interested only in lingering on the proceedings of the trial.
Hence, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) (SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.02.11 13:41:35 IST