Delhi High Court
Radeka Chaudhary vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~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,
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
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
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
