Dismissed

Rahul Taneja v. Kailash Kumar Sain

Rajasthan HC3 May 2018CRLMP/6066/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order dismissing his application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of his non-appearance as a witness. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the eight-year delay without explanation constituted a travesty of justice and provided no ground for interference under Section 482.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; application under Section 311 CrPC rejected; no interference with impugned order.

Rahul Taneja Vs Kailash Kumar Sain — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6066/2017

¶3

Rahul Taneja S/o Shri Arjundev Taneja, R/o 143-B, Frontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kailash Kumar Sain S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sain, R/o 2/87, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶9

: Mr. Dharmendra for Mr. Kapil Gupta : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

/ Order

¶12

03/05/2018

¶13

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.c. in order to assail the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the said Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Respondent/accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant/petitioner on 27.10.2009. The said cheque was returned by the Bank on the ground that the account of the accused is closed. The petitioner filed a complaint. For the first time, the petitioner/ complainant in the trial Court submitted his affidavit on 12.05.2010. Thereafter, he never presented himself in the witness box so that accused could affect the cross-examination.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner since 2014 is undergoing treatment of Cyst.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-6066/2017]

¶18

If that so as to why in between 2010 to 2014 accused had not stepped into the witness box to enable the accused to conduct cross-examination.

¶19

It is travesty of justice that for offence which is to be tried in summary manner or as a summons case, the complainant has not stepped into the witness box for a long period of eight years and had caused harassment to the accused.

¶20

No ground is made out to cause interference.

¶21

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

¶22

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶23

ashok

Rahul Taneja v. Kailash Kumar Sain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Taneja v. Kailash Kumar Sain

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

Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mamta Rani Vs Smt Veenu Gupta and Ors.

Sharda Vs Naresh Gangwar and Ors.

Dheer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Santosh Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp