Allowed

Sandesh Kumar v. Subodh Kumar

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2023CRLMP/1098/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under S. 482 CrPC regarding a cheque bounce case, the High Court quashed orders preventing the accused from cross-examining the complainant. Granting a conditional last opportunity due to constitutional rights to defend, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit costs to recall the witness for one day of examination.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 27.09.2022, 02.11.2022 and 14.10.2022 were quashed. Petitioner granted one final opportunity to cross-examine witness upon depositing Rs. 20,000/- within 15 days.

Sandesh Kumar Vs Subodh Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42510]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1098/2023

¶4

Sandesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Balmukand Kabra, Aged About 46 Years, R/o B3-Kumud Vihar-Ii, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Subodh Kumar S/o Shri Shyamlal Baheti, R/o 10-P-14 R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Rajeev Chauhan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki, PP
	Mr.	SanjayNahar

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

06/12/2023

¶14

The instant Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed against the orders dated 27.09.2022 and 02.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Original Case No.4580/2017 whereby the learned Judge rejected the prayer for recalling the complainant for cross examination as well as against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No.234/2022 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel who puts

[2023:RJ-JD:42510]

[CRLMP-1098/2023]

(2 of 4)

in appearance for the respondent-complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶20

Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent No.1complainant had submitted a criminal complaint before the learned trial Court in the year 2012 for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in which after taking cognizance of the offence, process was issued and the petitioner accused appeared before the Court concerned. During the course of trial several opportunities were granted but the accused failed to complete cross examination from the complainant whereafter vide order dated 27.09.2022 the learned trial Court closed the right of the petitioner to examine the complainant. No challenge was made to the above order of closing the right to conduct cross examination. On 20.10.2022, petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for allowing him to do cross examination of the complainant, but the same was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2022 by observing that the said application is nothing but a review of the earlier order.

¶21

The said order was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge have minutely examined the legality, correctness and propriety of the order and dismissed the same holding no error in the said order.

[2023:RJ-JD:42510]

[CRLMP-1098/2023]

(3 of 4)

After going through the entire material, I am of the view that neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Judge has committed any error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in view of the conduct of the accused yet, I am of this view that for the obnoxious behavior of the petitioner he can be penalised and costs can be imposed upon him but on account of his attitude, he cannot be deprived of his right to defend himself. Since the right to cross examine is akin to a right to defend granted by the Constitution Of India. Although ample opportunities have been granted to him and the matter is pending since year 2012 still in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner by penalising him to deposit cost.

¶26

Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 27.09.2022 and 02.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.4580/2017 and the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No.234/2022 are hereby quashed and set aside for the reasons mentioned above and one more opportunity is granted to him to cross examine the witness. The petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.20,000/- in advance before the learned trial Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon deposition of the cost of Rs.20,000/-, the learned trial Court shall recall the complainant for the purpose of evidence and to remain present on 10.01.2024. The accused petitioner shall commence and conclude the cross examination from the complainant on the very same day. The learned trial Court shall

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:42510]

[CRLMP-1098/2023]

not allow the petitioner to ask lengthy, frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant and scandalous questions and whereafter the trial shall begin from that stage only. It is further made clear that if the things are not done as aforesaid, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.

¶31

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶32

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶33

547-Mamta/-

Sandesh Kumar v. Subodh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandesh Kumar v. Subodh Kumar

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

Vishwanath Chotiya Vs State

Shivani Vs State of Rajasthan

Tararam Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Bhargava Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Muzib Rahman

Vimal Kumar and Ors. Vs State