Delhi High Court
Karuna Singh vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr on 21 November, 2012
Author: Manmohan
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3668/2009
KARUNA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. F.S. Chauhan, Advocate
versus
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.S. Jauhar, Advocate for resp.
No.2
% Date of Decision : 21st November, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J : (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. challenging
the order dated 9th September, 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate
whereby at the instance of the respondent-accused, the charge-sheet in FIR
No. 13 of 2004 had been summoned and cross-examination of the petitioner
had been deferred.
2. Mr. F.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by
virtue of the impugned order, the trial court has permitted cross-examination
of the petitioner beyond the time period stipulated by this Court in its order
dated 21st July, 2009 in W.P.(Crl.) 332/2009. He also submits that due to
summoning of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner would be compelled
to disclose her own defence in FIR No. 13 of 2004. Mr. F.S. Chauhan,
learned counsel repeatedly emphasized that by summoning the aforesaid
charge-sheet, the petitioner's right to silence in FIR No. 13 of 2004 has been
violated.
3. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Jauhar, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 points out that by another order passed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court on 5th October, 2012 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 664/2011, the learned
Judge has upheld the order of the trial court by virtue of which ` 20,000/-
costs had been imposed upon the petitioner for deliberately delaying her
own cross-examination though a specific time period had been stipulated by
this Court vide order dated 21st July, 2009 in W.P.(Crl.) 332/2009.
4. Mr. S.S. Jauhar, learned counsel also states that during the pendency
of the present petition, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
31/2012 before the Supreme Court challenging the very same impugned
order as in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 664/2011. He points out that the
Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as gross abuse of
process of Court with cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the trial court by summoning the charge-sheet in FIR No. 13 of 2004
has not violated the petitioner's constitutional right of silence.
6. Undoubtedly, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India confers the
right of silence upon every accused. In the event during cross-examination,
any question is put by the respondent-accused which violates the right of
silence incorporated in Article 20(3) and as upheld by the Supreme Court in
Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani & Anr. reported at (1978) 2 SCC 424, this
Court has no doubt that the trial court would not allow such a question. But
at this stage, it cannot be said that by just summoning the original charge-
sheet in FIR No. 13 of 2004, the petitioner's Fundamental Right has been
violated.
7. As far as the petitioner's arguments for permitting cross-examination
beyond the time period stipulated by this Court is concerned, this Court is of
the opinion that keeping in view the subsequent order passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 664/2011, it cannot be said
that the respondent or the trial court is liable in any manner for delay of
disposal of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 21, 2012
sd
