Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Surendra Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Narayan ... vs Sanjay Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Om Prakash ... on 28 February, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1410/2019
Surendra Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Aged About
52 Years, R/o A-9, Vanvihar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, R/o Plot
No.20, Near By Shiv Hanuman Mandir, Talkatora, Brahmpuri,
Jaipur 302001, Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agrawal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order 28/02/2019 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, be set aside.
Briefly stated, petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of complainant. The said cheque on presentation bounced. Resultantly, complainant-respondent filed a complaint in the court below. Complainant appeared on various dates, but counsel for the accused-petitioner did not come forward to extend the cross- examination. On 31.10.2018 cross-examination of the complainant was closed and the case was fixed for recording of statement of the accused.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1410/2019] The court below noted that earlier on 28.8.2018 cross- examination of the complainant was closed. However, vide order dated 8.10.2018 on the application been filed by the petitioner, one opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant at the cost of Rs.500/-. But the petitioner neither paid the cost, nor carried cross-examination. Therefore, on 31.10.2018, the cross-examination of the complainant was closed.
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.
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- examine complainant-respondent subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/-. The cost shall be disbursed to the complainant who (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1410/2019] 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.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Govind/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)