Petitioner sought quashing of an order closing cross-examination and a new chance to examine the complainant. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to appear on multiple adjourned dates, validating the trial court's decision.
None; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 19027 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.7.2010
Chander Shekhar
......Petitioner
Versus
Madhu Sharma
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 6.2.2010 passed in criminal complaint No.2278 dated 1.10.2009 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) vide which the cross-examination of the complainant/respondent has been closed by order as also order dated 25.3.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure P-2) has been dismissed. The prayer further is for grant of one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant/respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to enable him to cross-
-2-
Crl.Misc.No.M- 19027 of 2010 (O&M)
examine the complainant/respondent. The petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 6.2.2010.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
The complainant- respondent tendered her affidavit on 12.12.2009. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for her crossexamination for 15.1.2010, 25.1.2010, 3.2.2010 and 6.2.2010. However, on all the said dates, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the complainant. In these circumstances, left with no other option, learned trial Court rightly ordered that the cross-examination of the complainant-respondent be treated as NIL. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
July 07, 2010 anita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order closing cross-examination in a criminal case where the petitioner failed to appear on multiple adjourned dates.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chander Shekhar
Madhu Sharma
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
