Delhi District Court
Sukreti Gupta vs Manish Yadav on 25 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 213/2022
CNR No. DLNW01-007790-2022
Sukreti Gupta
W/o Sh. Suram Chand Gupta
R/o X-6, 1st Floor, Phase-1
Budh Vihar, Delhi
....... Revisionist
Versus
Manish Yadav
S/o Sh. Satish Yadav
R/o A-2/118, Sector-05
Rohini, Delhi
...... Respondent
Date of Filing : 04.08.2022
Date of Arguments : 17.11.2022
Date of order : 25.11.2022
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM-04 (North-West), Rohini, Delhi in a complaint case bearing Ct. Case No. 20643/2016 titled as 'Manish Yadav V. Sukreti Gupta'. Vide the impugned order dt.21.07.2022, the adjournment sought by the counsel for the accused / revisionist-herein for cross-examination of CW1/complainant-therein was not allowed and CE stood closed.
2. The brief facts, as set out in the present revision petition, are that the complainant-therein / respondent-herein Cr. Rev. No. 213/2022 Sukreti Gupta Vs. Manish Yadav Page No. 1 of 5 filed the above mentioned complaint case u/s 138 / 142 of N.I. Act against the revisionist-herein/accused-therein before the Ld. MM. In the said complaint case, the Ld. MM passed the impugned order dt.21.07.2022. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds among others that on 29.11.2018, accused was absent and counsel for the accused was very much present before the Ld. MM and was ready to cross-examine the witness but due to paucity of time, the Ld. MM was pleased to adjourn the matter. On 11.04.2019, counsel for the revisionist went to his native place i.e. Muzaffar Nagar to cast his vote in the General Election and the revisionist with proxy counsel was very much present. On 19.08.2019, complainant was partly examined and due to paucity of time the cross-examination was deferred and there was no delay on behalf of the revisionist. On 23.10.2019, counsel for the revisionist was ready to cross-examine complainant but due to seeking exemption on behalf of the complainant, the matter was adjourned. On 23.01.2020, the matter was adjourned as counsel for the revisionist went to Muzaffar Nagar to submit his daughter's educational/school admission form in school. On few dates, the matter was adjourned en bloc due to outbreak of Corona Virus. On 12.10.2021, revisionist and his counsel were present but the matter was adjourned subject to cost of Rs.500/- upon the complainant as the complainant did not appear before the Ld. MM. The complete testimony/cross-examination of respondent is very much essential to reach the just conclusion of the case. The revisionist has prayed to set aside the impugned order dt. 21.07.2022.
Cr. Rev. No. 213/2022 Sukreti Gupta Vs. Manish Yadav Page No. 2 of 53. The respondent has filed reply to the revision petition and raised the preliminary objections that the revisionist has leveled baseless allegations by concocting the facts and there is no truth in the averments. In reply to the grounds, the respondent has stated that the Ld. MM has given sufficient time to revisionist for cross-examination of the complainant/respondent. The revisionist has filed application us/ 145 (2) CrPC on false and frivolous grounds. The revisionist has always tried to mislead and played tactics to delay the proceedings.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and I have gone through the impugned order dt. 21.07.2022 and also the materials available on record.
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that on some dates, the counsel for the accused was present for cross- examination of CW1 but due to paucity of time, CW1 could not be cross-examined. The adjournment were sought on genuine grounds earlier and the revisionist/accused had no intention to delay the proceedings before the Ld. MM. On 19.08.2019, complainant was partly examined and due to paucity of time the cross-examination was deferred. Even, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the matter was adjourned en block for some dates. On 12.10.2021, the matter was adjourned subject to cost upon the complainant as he did not appear before the Ld. MM. CW1 being the complainant / respondent-herein is the material witness and for the just and proper adjudication of the case u/s 138 of NI Act, he is required to be cross- examined.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the present revision is filed on baseless and false allegations by Cr. Rev. No. 213/2022 Sukreti Gupta Vs. Manish Yadav Page No. 3 of 5 concocting the facts. Sufficient opportunities have already been given to the revisionist/accused by the Ld. MM for cross- examination of the complainant/respondent. The revisionist is taking the proceedings of the court very casually and also adopting delay tactics. On 21.07.2022 the counsel for the revisionist was present and it is the duty of his counsel to cross-examine CW1 but he did not cross-examine CW1.
7. In view of the reasons mentioned in this revision petition, facts & circumstances of the case, impugned order dt.21.07.2022, arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that CW1/complainant was partly cross-examined on 19.08.2019 and on the next date i.e. 23.10.2019, counsel for the accused was present but the complainant was not present before the Ld. MM. On 23.01.2020, the adjournment on behalf of the accused was sought on the ground that he has gone to Mujjafar Nagar for filing the form of his daughter. Thereafter, no adverse orders were passed due to Covid-19 pandemic and on some dates, the matter was taken up through video conferencing till 17.04.2021 before the Ld. MM. On 12.10.2021 due to non- appearance of the complainant, the matter was adjourned to 11.01.2022 which was a virtual hearing before the Ld. MM. The complainant/CW1 is the material witness who was partly cross-examined in this case and his further cross-examination is essential for just and proper adjudication of the case. It was the duty of the counsel for the revisionist/accused to further cross-examine the CW-1 but he did not cross-examine CW1 on 21.07.2022 on medical reason as mentioned in the impugned order dt.21.07.2022. The revisionist should not suffer due to negligence/mistake, if any of the counsel. Therefore, Cr. Rev. No. 213/2022 Sukreti Gupta Vs. Manish Yadav Page No. 4 of 5 considering the above discussions, in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice, the revisionist be given at least one last opportunity to further cross-examine the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned order dt.21.07.2022 closing right of the revisionist-herein to cross-examine the complainant / CW1 is set aside and this revision petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs.10000/-, which shall be paid by the revisionist to the complainant-therein/respondent-herein on the next date of hearing before the Ld. MM concerned. The parties as well as counsel are directed to appear before the Ld. MM concerned on 13.12.2022. TCR along with the copy of this Order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by
YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2022.11.25
15:41:46 +0530
Announced in the open court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
today on 25 November 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge th North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi Cr. Rev. No. 213/2022 Sukreti Gupta Vs. Manish Yadav Page No. 5 of 5