Delhi High Court
Saharoon & Anr. vs State on 15 March, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 814/2011 and Crl.M.A. 3105/2011
Decided on 15.03.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
SAHAROON & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter
alia for setting aside the orders dated 27.1.2011 and 02.02.2011 passed by
the learned ASJ in a case arising out of FIR No.174/2008 lodged under
Sections 398/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Civil Lines, Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that that on 27.01.2011, the
date fixed for recording the cross-examination of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9,
who were recalled for their cross-examination on the basis of an application
filed by the petitioners on 22.12.2009, subject to payment of costs of
`5,000/-, the counsel for the petitioners could not appear for the reason that
he was held up before this Court in a case registered as Crl.Appeal
No.1044/2010. For that reason, the opportunity to cross-examine the
recalled witnesses was closed vide order dated 27.1.2011. He further states
that vide order dated 02.02.2011, a fresh application filed by the petitioners
under Section 311 Cr.PC was also dismissed while holding that there was no
justification to recall the witnesses at the instance of the defence counsel.
He submits that the matter is now listed before the trial court tomorrow for
orders.
3. On enquiry, counsel for the petitioners states that after
02.02.2011, the date on which the application filed by the petitioners under
Section 311 Cr.PC was dismissed, the matter was listed on two dates. It
was fixed for recording the statements of the accused/petitioners under
Section 313 Cr.PC on 15.02.2011. On the said date, statements of the
accused/petitioners were duly recorded and the matter was fixed for
01.03.2011 for arguments. However, on 1.3.2011, at the request of the
counsel for the petitioners, the case has been adjourned for tomorrow. Now
comes the present petition on the eve of the hearing of the matter before
the learned ASJ.
4. There is no ground made out by the petitioners for interference,
particularly in view of the manner in which the petitioners have conducted
the case. It is pertinent to note that on 22.12.2009, the petitioners filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.PC praying inter alia for recalling certain
witnesses produced by the respondent/State, namely, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-
9, so as to further cross-examine them. Vide order dated 22.12.2009, the
said application was allowed, subject to costs of `5,000/-, with a clear
observation that only one chance would be given to the petitioners/accused
to cross-examine the said witnesses. Ultimately, the witnesses were present
before the court below on 27.01.2011 for their cross-examination. However
the counsel for the petitioners/accused was not available. As a result, the
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was closed and the matter was
directed to be listed on 02.02.2011 for recording the statements of the
accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC. On 02.02.2011, yet another
application was filed by the petitioners by changing the date on the earlier
application, i.e., 22.12.2009 to 27.01.2011, admittedly without any change
in the body of the application. The said application was dismissed as being
misconceived and devoid of merits. The learned ASJ declined to recall the
witnesses at the instance of the petitioners and the matter was adjourned to
15.02.2011 on which date, the statements of the petitioners/accused were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Thereafter, it has taken one and a half
month for the petitioners to approach this Court praying inter alia for
interference in the order dated 02.02.2011. This is despite the fact that the
petitioners were well aware of the fact that the matter is listed tomorrow
before the learned ASJ for orders. It is apparent that the petitioners are
adopting dilatory tactics to prolong the proceedings in the trial court and the
present petition is yet another step in that direction.
5. The petition is dismissed alongwith the pending application, as
being devoid of merits.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 15, 2011 JUDGE
rkb
