Allowed

Harmeet Singh v. Gurprit Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2014CRM-M/39129/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order dismissing an application for cross-examination of the complainant in a criminal trial. The High Court set aside the dismissal, ordering the trial court to resume cross-examination amidst an inadvertent evidentiary closure.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 1.12.2012 dismissing the application was set aside; the petitioner/complainant is ordered to be cross-examined.

Harmeet Singh Vs Gurprit Singh and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl.M.No. M- 39129 of 2012 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.M.No. M- 39129 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.5.2014

¶4

Harmeet Singh

¶5

................Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Gurprit Singh @ Gauri and others

¶8

.................Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶10

Present: Sh. S.S. Swaich, Advocate

¶11

for the petitioner.

¶12

Sh. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with

¶13

Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2, 4 & 5

¶14

K.C. Puri, J.

¶15

Challenge in this petition is the order dated 1.12.2012 vide which the application of the complainant for cross examination of the complainant was dismissed.

¶16

Briefly stated, the case has culminated upto the stage of arguments, but during the course of arguments, it is revealed that cross examination of the complainant was not completed. From the perusal of the record it is revealed that complainant was partly cross

¶17

examined and his cross examination was deferred on 26.4.2012 at the

¶18

Chugh Banita 2014.05.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶19

Crl.M.No. M- 39129 of 2012 -2-

¶20

request of counsel for the accused and on 26.7.2012 the Court time was over, so the cross examination was deferred.

¶21

The stand of the complainant is that he was under the impression that cross examination is completed and it was only at the time of arguments, it was revealed that cross examination has not been completed.

¶22

Learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of delay and observed that the application has been moved just to fill up the lacuna. That finding cannot sustain the test of legal scrutiny. The complainant has appeared before the trial Court a number of times. It so seems that it is only on account of inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel the evidence has been closed by the complainant.

¶23

So, in these circumstances, the order dated 1.12.2012 stands set aside and the petitioner/complainant is ordered to be cross examined. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall not seek adjournment to delay the proceedings of the case. The complainant shall appear before the trial Court as and when called for cross examination.

¶24

Disposed of.

¶25

( K.C. Puri ) 21.5.2014 Judge chugh

¶26

Chugh Banita 2014.05.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Harmeet Singh v. Gurprit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmeet Singh v. Gurprit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. Vs State of Haryana

Nasib Chand Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balram Vs St of Hry & Ors.

Laddoo Singh Alias Harjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hrang Tin Khara Vs State of Punjab

Hrang Tin Khara Vs State of Punjab