In a Section 528 BNS petition challenging the dismissal of a Section 311 CrPC application, the High Court found the petitioner's claim of denied cross-examination meritless given repeated adjournments and non-payment of costs. The Court dismissed the petition as a delaying tactic.
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.
2025:UHC:2432
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 275 of 2025
02 April, 2025
Neeraj Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
Narendra Narula --Respondent
Presence:- Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. preferred against the impugned order dated 04.02.2025, passed by learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No.3343 of 2023 (old no.2355 of 2022) in “ Narendra Narula Vs. Neeraj Kumar ” U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 ( for short “N.I. Act” ) whereby the application U/s 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner / accused would submit that on 09.10.2024 opportunity to crossexamine the complainant was closed and the case was listed on 13.11.2024 for evidences of the petitioner /accused; that, on 13.11.2024 the petitioner /accused closed his evidences and the case was listed on 20.12.2024 for recording of statements under Section
1
2025:UHC:2432
313 of the Cr.P.C.; that, on 13.01.2025, the petitioner /accused filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner /accused would submit that the rejection order dated 04.02.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law because the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant could have been given to the petitioner/accused.
2
2025:UHC:2432
15.06.2024. On 08.07.2024, the petitioner /accused sought adjournment and also on 24.08.2024 adjournment was granted to the petitioner/accused, however, at the cost of ₹300/-.
On 09.10.2024, neither the cost was paid nor the respondent/complainant was cross-examined and by a detailed order the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/complainant was closed and the case was listed on 13.11.2024 for evidence of the petitioner /accused. On 20.12.2024, the case was listed for recording of statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. All these facts have been given by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order.
/complainant would submit that the opportunity to cross-examine was given at the cost of ₹300/- even that cost was not paid, therefore, there is no possibility that the petitioner /accused would comply with the direction of this Court.
Learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant would further submit that this petition is nothing but a delaying tactic; that, the wife of
3
2025:UHC:2432
the respondent/ complainant is suffering from cancer and the respondent /complainant is in dire need of money for her treatment; that, this amount was given through bank transaction during Covid-19 as the petitioner /accused was in need of money and both the respondent and the petitioner were on friendly terms; that, grounds taken in petition are frivolous and an attempt to mislead the process of law, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
SS
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNS due to alleged denial of opportunity to cross-examine.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be permitted to cross-examine the complainant despite delays and non-payment of court costs.
Whether the dismissal of the Section 311 CrPC application by the lower court was sustainable.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Neeraj Kumar
Narendra Narula
Vivek Bharti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
