$~A-28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 367/2012
Judgment delivered on 31.01.2012
RADEKA CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv.
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP with
Mr.Satish Mishra, Advocate
Mr.Rajesh Yadv, Mr Rajesh
Bhardwaj and Ms.Ruchira
Arora, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.1279/2012 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is allowed.
CRL.M.C.367/2012 & CRL.M.A.1278/2012
1. Issue notice. Mr Satish Mishra, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of APP for the State/Respondent no.1 and Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Crl.M.C.No.367/2012 Page 1 of 4 Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the instant petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Vide this petition the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No.867/1/10 dismissing the application for recalling of witness Sh.Vijay Kumar Khanna for the purpose of further cross-examination. It is further prayed that the petitioner/accused be allowed to get herself examined as defence witness in the case mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has strongly opposed allowing the prayer of the petitioner/accused because of the fact that the learned trial Judge in the order dated 23.12.2011 recorded as under:-
"Record perused. During her cross-examination u/s.313 Cr.PC on 23.07.2010, question was put to the accused that:-
Q. Do you want to lead DE? And. No."
4. It is further recorded that after such response given by the petitioner/accused herself in the presence and under the guidance of Crl.M.C.No.367/2012 Page 2 of 4 her learned counsel, learned trial Judge declined to allow her to lead Defence Evidence at the concluding stage as this matter was listed for final arguments.
5. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.2 has rather concluded his arguments on 28.01.2012 and hence prayer of the petitioner may not be allowed. It is a sheer wastage of public time and the petitioner is only interested to delay the matter.
6. Though I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for respondent no.2, however, in the interest of justice, I allow the petition to the limited extent that the petitioner shall cross-examine CW 3 Sh.Vijay Kumar Khanna on the very material aspect as the complainant had not delivered the item to the accused in lieu of the delivery, subject to payment of Cost of ` 75,000/- to be paid in favour of Respondent no.2 and cost of ` 25,000/- be paid in favour of School and Home for mentally retarded children, Avantika, Rohini Sector-1, Delhi within two weeks from today. Proof of the same shall also be placed on record.
7. The Principal/Headmaster of the abovesaid school is further directed to keep this money in form of FDR initially for a period of Crl.M.C.No.367/2012 Page 3 of 4 two years with automatic renewals thereafter and the interest accrued thereon shall be utilized for the purpose of the well being of the needy children of the school.
8. I further make it clear that CW 3 Shri Vijay Kumar Khanna shall remain present before the Court on 13.2.2012 for cross-examination and if the petitioner fails to cross-examine on that date, subject to convenience of Trial Court, then she will not be entitled to this relief to lead defence evidence. It is further clarified that the petitioner shall also lead defence evidence on the very that date.
9. With these observations, Crl.M.C. 367/2012 is allowed. Pending Crl. M.A.No.1278/2012 also stands disposed of.
10. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 31, 2012 nt Crl.M.C.No.367/2012 Page 4 of 4