Sharad Sarnaik vs Smt. Chandra Shrivas
2022 Latest Caselaw 1305 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                       NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPCR No. 157 of 2022

      Sharad Sarnaik S/o Late Narayan Rao Sarnaik, Aged About 40 Years
      R/o Near Shyam Nagar Bhatia Building, Behind The R/o Shri Rajesh
      Shrivastav Advocate, Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, District Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh.                                     --- Petitioner

                                   Versus

      Smt. Chandra Shrivas Wd/o Rajesh Shrivas, Aged About 47 Years
      R/o. Bashtall Hospital Ward, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---
                                                             Respondent

For the applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

14.03.2022

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.11.2019 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby the right of the

petitioner to cross examine the complainant was closed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on each and

every date of hearing, the petitioner accused herein was appearing,

however, because of non-cooperation of the counsel, the cross-

examination could not be completed, therefore, further opportunity

may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the

arguments.

4. A perusal of the order would show that enough chances were granted

and even after closure of cross examination, the right of defence has

also been closed. The case has already been heard and fixed for

judgment. A perusal of the document would show that this is a

proceeding u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the

petitioner is an accused. The order sheets of the courts below show

that on 19.09.2019 the complainant's examination-in-chief was

concluded. Thereafter on 4 dates, the case was fixed for cross-

examination; even after imposing the cost of Rs.2000/- the cross

examination was not conducted in the case and accordingly the cost

was paid. Eventually on 11.11.2019 the right to cross examine was

closed. Subsequently the complaint case continued and during the

pendency, the right of defence was also closed on 26.10.2021 and

thereafter the case is fixed for final decision 16.12.2021 and the

petitioner herein also did not appear on various dates, therefore, the

judgment could not be passed.

5. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that deliberate

attempts have been made to protract the trial. Had there been a

bona-fide intention, the things would have been otherwise, but the

conduct shows something else. Therefore, when the petitioner himself

has invited peril, he has to blame himself for the ultimate order.

Sufficient Chances were given by the learned court below even for

cross-examination or to lead evidence in defence. The petitioner has

lost all the chances due to deliberate disobedience. Therefore, under

the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition warranting

interference by this Court in the order dated 11.11.2019. Accordingly,

the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao