Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC against rejection of prayer to recall complainant for cross-examination in a fake-documents complaint case. Court allowed the petition, quashed the trial court order, imposed Rs.25,000 cost and granted one final chance to cross-examine on a fixed date.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:10077]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 443/2022
Shyam Prakash Srivastava S/o Shri Durga Charan Srivastava, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Pyoza, Baderu Police Station, District Banda (Up)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. D.S.Udawat |
|---|---|
| Mr. Shryan Ramdev | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/02/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:10077]
[CRLMP-443/2022]
(2 of 4)
Sardarshahar, District Churu alleging inter alia that in the year 1999, the petitioner has applied for the post of Reader at Gandhi Vidhya Mandir, Sardarshahar for which after verification of the educational documents, the selection committee appointed the petitioner on the post of Reader. The petitioner served in the said institution till 31.08.2007. It is alleged in the FIR that a complaint has been filed before the authorities of the Institution to the effect that petitioner has submitted fake and false documents at the time of his selection and after selection he served there for good eight years. On the basis of the above complaint, FIR No.198/2008 was registered at the Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC wherein the learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence, issued process against the petitioner-accused, who appeared before the Court concerned. On 11.09.2018, the learned trial Court passed the order framing charge and posted the matter for prosecution evidence on 16.10.2018 and witnesses No.1 to 3 were summoned. On 23.08.2019, the statement of the complainant was recorded, as the witnesses No.2 & 3 died, therefore, the learned trial Court closed the evidence to their extent. The prosecution declined to file reply in respect of application dated 23.08.2019 thereafter on 04.06.2019 the petitioner did not appear before the Court. Counsel for the petitioner filed an application for non-appearance of the petitioner and it was opined by the learned Court below that sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant despite that petitioner failed to do so. The learned Court under Section 309(2)(d) Cr.P.C. vide order
[2024:RJ-JD:10077]
[CRLMP-443/2022]
(3 of 4)
dated 27.08.2019 closed the right of the petitioner to examine the complainant and he was directed to remain present along with complainant for recording statement on 14.12.2021. On 14.12.2021, petitioner’s counsel appeared and submits that he was unable to contact him, therefore the learned trial Judge closed the right of the petitioner to examine the complainant; cancelled his bail bonds and issued warrant of arrest against him and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The said order is under assail.
[2024:RJ-JD:10077]
[CRLMP-443/2022]
days from the date of copy of receipt of this order. Upon deposition of the cost of Rs.25,000/-, the learned trial Court shall recall the complainant-respondent No.2 on 27.03.2024 for the purpose of cross examination for the above purpose. The accused petitioner shall commence and conclude the cross examination from the complainant on the very same day. The learned trial Court shall 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
304-Mamta/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted a last opportunity to cross-examine the complainant despite repeated failure to appear and the trial court's closure of that right?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Shyam Prakash Srivastava
State Of Rajasthan
Shri Upendra Pal Dhawan
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
