Allowed¶16

Iramya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Rohit Chaudhary

Delhi HC20 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./3724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Iranya Developers Pvt Ltd & Anr. v Rohit Chaudhary, CRL.M.C. 3724/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16369/2025, Delhi High Court, Amit Mahajan J, 20.08.2025; Section 311 CrPC application dismissed by Trial Court set aside; closure of right to cross-examine complainant (order dated 24.03.2023); one last opportunity to cross-examine granted; complainant's evidence to be taken 26.08.2025; compensation ₹40,000/- to respondent; no unwarranted adjournments; expeditious cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 24.03.2025 of the learned Trial Court set aside; one last opportunity granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the complainant, subject to payment of Rs. 40,000/- compensation to the respondent and expeditious conduct of the cross-examination without unwarranted adjournments. ¶16

Iramya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rohit Chaudhary — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners should be granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, by setting aside the learned Trial Court's order dated 24.03.2025 dismissing their application under Section 311 CrPC.

¶10

Court's answer

Since the matter has not proceeded much, one last opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the complainant, on adequately compensating him for the delay caused upto now.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

If the learned Trial Court is able to take the evidence of the complainant on 26.08.2025, the petitioners, subject to the availability of time, are to be permitted to cross-examine the complainant on the said date itself.

¶15

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the cross-examination and not grant unwarranted adjournments to any of the parties, and the petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent before the learned Trial Court.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Amit Mahajan, J., order dated 20.08.2025 in CRL.M.C. 3724/2025): The learned Trial Court had, by order dated 24.03.2023, closed the petitioners' right to cross-examine the complainant even though the complainant had still not tendered his evidence, and by order dated 24.03.2025 dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Finding that the matter had not proceeded much, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 and granted the petitioners one last opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, on adequately compensating him for the delay. If the Trial Court took the complainant's evidence on 26.08.2025 (the date fixed), the petitioners were, subject to availability of time, to be permitted to cross-examine on the same day; the Trial Court was requested to expedite the cross-examination without unwarranted adjournments, and the petitioner was directed to pay compensation of ₹40,000/- to the respondent before the Trial Court.

¶1

$~32

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3724/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16369/2025 IRAMYA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ANR.

¶4

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal & Mr. Sparsh Agarwal, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

ROHIT CHAUDHARY .....Respondent Through: Mr. H.S. Yadav, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 20.08.2025

¶8

This Court by order dated 26.05.2025, while issuing notice to the respondent/ complainant, noted that the right of the petitioners to cross examine the complainant was closed vide order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court even though the complainant had still not tendered his evidence.

¶9

By the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), was dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one last opportunity may be granted to cross examine the complainant and he undertakes that no unwarranted adjournment will be taken.

¶11

It is pointed out that the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 26.08.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant states that the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 11:53:59

¶14

complainant will appear before the learned Trial Court on that date and subject to the Court permitting, the evidence will be tendered on that day itself.

¶15

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that since the matter has not proceeded much, one last opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioners to cross examine the complainant on adequately compensating him for the delay caused upto now. 7. If the learned Trial Court is able to take the evidence of the complainant on 26.08.2025, it is requested that the petitioners, subject to the availability of the time, be permitted to cross examine the complainant on the said date itself.

¶16

If for some reason, the cross examination could not be concluded on the said date, the learned Trial Court is requested to expediate the cross examination and not grant unwarranted adjournments to any of the parties. The petitioner is also directed to pay a compensation of ₹40,000/- to the respondent on the next date before learned Trial Court. 9. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, is set aside.

¶17

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶18

AUGUST 20, 2025 “SK”

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 11:53:59

Iramya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Rohit Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iramya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Rohit Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Arshad Ahmad Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Celestial Tech Vates Limited Vs United Teleservices Ltd.

Dalip Kumar Vs State & Anr.

Trustline Securities Ltd. Formerly Known as K and a Vs Premlata Gupta & Anr.

Aman Bidhuri Vs the State NCT of Delhi

M/S. Vivo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ms. Kavita Kumari Sharma