Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Sh. Virender Singh, ld. counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 498A IPC by the learned Trial Court and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence way back in the year 2019.

4. Ld. counsel has further argued that barring one or two occasions, the accused had never sought any adjournment during the trial and despite that unreasonable and unjustifiable cost has been imposed upon the accused who cannot see since his birth. Ld. counsel has further argued that on 14.02.2025, counsel for accused was busy in Hon'ble Supreme Court and a passover was sought but the learned Trial Court imposed heavy cost of Rs.5000/- and did not passover the matter for post-lunch session. Ld. counsel has further argued that an application for waiver of cost was moved on 24.05.2025. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2025 at 11.30 am, however, since counsel for accused had to appear before different Courts in Tis Hazari, he requested for a passover till 1.00 pm but without hearing the counsel, his application seeking waiver of cost was dismissed and further cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed.

examine the records of the inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. Object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law".

11. Perusal of Trial Court Record reveals that both the parties are suffering from visual impairment. Charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC was framed against the accused on 05.07.2019 and the matter was listed for P.E. Thereafter, on one of the dates of hearing, the complainant sought adjournment which was duly allowed and after that, COVID-19 Pandemic started. The effective hearing in the matter then took place on 03.08.2022 wherein the complainant was again absent. The examination-in-chief of the complainant took place from November, 2022 till March, 2024. On 13.03.2024, remaining examination-in-chief and part cross examination of the complainant was recorded and remaining evidence was deferred. On the next two dates of hearing, the complainant did not turn up. On 14.02.2025, complainant was present but a passover was sought. It is recorded in the order that two passovers were sought and thereafter, adjournment was sought at around 12.00 noon. Ld. counsel for accused has made submissions which are contrary to the proceedings recorded in the order dated 14.02.2025. Ld. counsel has submitted that only passover was sought and no adjournment was sought. On 14.02.2025, ld. Trial Court imposed cost of Rs.5000/- keeping in view the fact that the complainant was differently abled. It is pertinent to mention here Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.

that both the parties are suffering from visual impairment and are differently abled persons. On the next date of hearing i.e. 25.03.2025, the complainant was present and she was partly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused and remaining cross examination was deferred due to paucity of time and not on account of any request made by ld. counsel for the accused and next date was given of 24.05.2025. On that day, an application seeking waiver of cost was moved by ld. counsel for accused which was listed for next date. On the next date of hearing also, no substitute APP was assigned and therefore, evidence of complainant could not be recorded. It is pertinent to note that counsel for accused was duly present in the Court on that date. Therefore, the adjournment on the said date was not on account of non-appearance of counsel for the accused. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 03.09.2025, the complainant was present, however, the passover was sought till 12.30 pm. Again at 12.35 pm, passover was sought stating that the counsel was coming from Tis Hazari Court. At 12.35 pm, ld. Trial Court passed the following order:-

"AT 12:35 PM Present : Ms. Aradhana Pandit, ld. APP for the State.

Mr. Raj Kumar Mittal and Ms. Bharti Kapil, ld. counsel for complainant. Accused appeared through VC.

PW Rita in person.

Accused has sought further passover till 2 PM by stating that his counsel is coming from Tis Hazari Court. The same is disallowed considering the physical disability of the PW Rita and since she has been Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.