Dismissed

Sharad Sarnaik v. Smt. Chandra Shrivas

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2022WPCR/157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the closure of cross-examination in an s. 138 NI Act trial, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition. The court held that the petitioner deliberately protracted the trial by failing to appear for cross-examination after multiple dates and fixed schedules, thereby losing the right to interfere with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the petitioner lost the right to cross-examine due to deliberate non-cooperation.

Sharad Sarnaik Vs Smt. Chandra Shrivas — Money Laundering | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 157 of 2022

¶5

Sharad Sarnaik S/o Late Narayan Rao Sarnaik, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Shyam Nagar Bhatia Building, Behind The R/o Shri Rajesh Shrivastav Advocate, Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Chandra Shrivas Wd/o Rajesh Shrivas, Aged About 47 Years R/o. Bashtall Hospital Ward, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --Respondent

¶8

For the applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

14.03.2022

¶12

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby the right of the petitioner to cross examine the complainant was closed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on each and every date of hearing, the petitioner accused herein was appearing, however, because of non-cooperation of the counsel, the crossexamination could not be completed, therefore, further opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments.

¶15

A perusal of the order would show that enough chances were granted and even after closure of cross examination, the right of defence has also been closed. The case has already been heard and fixed for judgment. A perusal of the document would show that this is a proceeding u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the

¶16

¶17

petitioner is an accused. The order sheets of the courts below show that on 19.09.2019 the complainant's examination-in-chief was concluded. Thereafter on 4 dates, the case was fixed for crossexamination; even after imposing the cost of Rs.2000/- the cross examination was not conducted in the case and accordingly the cost was paid. Eventually on 11.11.2019 the right to cross examine was closed. Subsequently the complaint case continued and during the pendency, the right of defence was also closed on 26.10.2021 and thereafter the case is fixed for final decision 16.12.2021 and the petitioner herein also did not appear on various dates, therefore, the judgment could not be passed.

¶18

Considering the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that deliberate attempts have been made to protract the trial. Had there been a bona-fide intention, the things would have been otherwise, but the conduct shows something else. Therefore, when the petitioner himself has invited peril, he has to blame himself for the ultimate order. Sufficient Chances were given by the learned court below even for cross-examination or to lead evidence in defence. The petitioner has lost all the chances due to deliberate disobedience. Therefore, under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition warranting interference by this Court in the order dated 11.11.2019. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶19

Sd/GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

¶20

Rao

Sharad Sarnaik v. Smt. Chandra Shrivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Sarnaik v. Smt. Chandra Shrivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jalodar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Awadhram Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S J. P. Traders Vs Bank of Baroda

M/s Ladhram Tikyomal through its Proprietor Vs Bank of Baroda through its Authorized Offier